Strategy and sitting on your ass are 2 different things.
Strategy is taking down a better striker to keep him off his game and attempting to maul him on the ground. Strategy is keeping a submission artist standing. Strategy is wrestling a guy to the cage to tire him out. Strategy is taking a few leg kicks so you can land a big right hand counter.
Strategy is not when you take a guy down and stand over him wondering what to do. Its not strategy to be in mount and not finish. Its not strategy to run around the ring in hopes of landing in guard.
When your initial strategy is not working you need to change and move to another method.
Taking the knee in football is like not hitting a guy who is already KOed on the ground. When Hendo did it he got a blasted saying it was unnecessary and he had no honor or respect for Bisping even though he was fighting to the end. If the Saints wouldn't take a knee and Breese would pump a 40 yd TD pass out they would scream about unsportsmanlike conduct and no respect about him for years.(so happy I can use the Saints in an analogy)
Shifting to overly defensive play in basketball and hockey does not mean that the other team stops attacking just means they have to work harder to get through an obstacle. The game slows down but it is still being played competitively.
Walking a home run hitter is a blip in the game. More like giving up the take down to work your ground game. You are sacrificing a little in hopes of gaining a better situation. You don't walk every batter.
In all the fights on Strikeforce and the last UFC there should have been better performances all around by both fighters. After all they are getting paid to fight each other not run around the cage not engaging.
Its very hard when 2 top level fighters go after each other this is understandable. I just think that many of us who are real fans want to see the fighters represent themselves, their gyms and the sport in a better more competitive way.
Its a fighters job to win. Its their health and their career, not yours.
CaptainPlanet - Somebody out there has to have a defense argument. Please...enlighten me.
I'll give it a shot. The fight promotions are there to entertain, so by extension the fighters are as well. However, when it comes down to each indivdual fight, the fighter's overriding objective is to win the match. If he has to be boring in order to win, he will be, because that's better than being an exciting loser.
Win within the rules. Change the rules to make it so that winning is more entertaining.
Also, these sports analogies fail. It's like a football team where the offense is NFL level and the defense is high school level players. Then the other team is flipped. Once the fight gets to the ground, it's like you're stuck watching the NFL team do whatever it wants for 5 minutes at a time with no chance of it stopping. It's not entertaining beyond a short period.
Another analogy for some of the fights would be fighters getting stuck in their equivalent "high school" level play zone. I don't want to watch people who suck at kick boxing or grappling do those things. Just like very few people go to random high school football games for watching "the sport" of it. You want to see something entertaining or impressive.
I watch because seeing who the better fighter is entertains me. I know that not every fight will be exciting, and I accept it. I believe that if you consistently watch events, more often than not you will find it worth your time and money. I can't begin to count how many dull NFL or NBA games I've watched. MMA is no different. It will hopefully never become Mixed Martial Arts Entertainment.
FatsMcGee - Simple. MMA is a sport. The athlete has one job (unless stipulated otherwise in their contract) and that is to win. It does not say they must win by KO, submission or decision, or by some entertaining fashion, they simply must win. And if they win, they get a larger purse. Sure there are incentives, bonuses for finishing, but at the end of the day every athlete wants to win the belt and become champion.
Again. MMA is a sport. This is not entertainment. There is a purpose and it is not to entertain the audience, it is to win.
Take football. Teams will kneel on the ball to run out the clock. Would it be more entertaining if they went for it? Sure it would, but the safe play is to run out the clock. They want to win.
Take basketball. Players will intentionally foul the other team so they can't hit a three pointer. Sometimes dragging the game out for much longer than it needs to, as the other team will retaliate by fouling them back. This slows the pace down and essentially becomes a boring free throw competition. Not very entertaining.
Take baseball, pitchers will intentionally walk a homerun hitter. Wouldn't it be more exciting if they pitched him a fastball down the middle and went for the strikeout?
Take hockey, a team gets a lead and they start playing pure defence. Shouldn't they keep trying to score?
Sport is about strategy, and as a true fan, you love the strategy. It separates the good from the great. It's like a chess match. Maybe it isn't always the most exciting thing in the world, but then there's those rare moments of beauty like when Joe Carter hit the home run to win the world series, or when Eli Manning drove up the field to win the Superbowl that you say to yourself 'I can't believe I just saw that, that was amazing.' and it justifies the time you've 'wasted' watching the sport.
Beyond that, in this particular sport, these guys are putting their health on the line, and I can't fault them for playing it safe. One KO loss too many could end your career.
You want to be entertained, go watch some sports entertainment, MMA aint for everyone.
No, a sport IS purely for entertainment! Don't come at me with this bullshit artsy, jazz listenin, tolstoy readin answer as if you were some sophisticate that enjoys the "nuances" of the sport that is MMA.
As I pretty clearly explained in my original post, there is no importance to sports, ESPECIALLY pro sports, other than entertainment value. Yes, competition is great for youngsters to teach them certain values and the like, but the second you start charging people $50-$2k for a seat and $50 PPV, it is to entertain.
And the comparison to team sports is ludicrous. Football and basketball, you get the ball back when the other team scores. Baseball, you get to hit every inning. There is always action and an opportunity to come back.
If you want to be extremely literal, ya, you can say that it's up to the fighter to create opportunities to come back. But when one fighter is so dominant that he can just blanket his opponent, he owes it to himself AND the fans to finish the fight.
Crazy Zimmerman -CaptainPlanet - Somebody out there has to have a defense argument. Please...enlighten me.
I'll give it a shot. The fight promotions are there to entertain, so by extension the fighters are as well. However, when it comes down to each indivdual fight, the fighter's overriding objective is to win the match. If he has to be boring in order to win, he will be, because that's better than being an exciting loser.
Is it better to be a boring winner?
So why is it that even though he loses every other fight, Phil Baroni still seems to find work? Or Pete Sell for that matter? Marcus Davis?
lol @ "bullshit artsy, jazz listenin, tolstoy readin answer "
I think jkartigue did a good job of countering my argument. I agree my sports analogies were flawed on some level. But I think you see the essence of what I'm saying. If every game went to overtime, or was ended by a come from behind grandslam, there'd be nothing special about it, there would be no drama.
It is unrealistic to expect that in every fight someone will be finished. To think that way, you sound like a spoiled little brat. You simply can't and won't always get what you want.
I agree, in the case of Houston Alexander vs Kimbo Slice, we were promised a war and we got a complete shit-fest.
Anderson Silva's last fight was certainly strange. But I didn't find Shields vs Hendo boring, nor did I find Mo vs Mousasi boring. In fact I thought both fights would go the other way, and I was very surprised to see them unfold as they did.
I can see you'd be upset about the guys gassing out, when I made my point it was in regards to GSP's performance, which was that of an elite athlete, he just happens to face incredibly tough competition, and maybe he has a hard time finishing, but he completely dominates and never fails to employ a winning strategy since his loss to Serra. I don't find his fights boring at all.
I guess at the end of the day, its just different strokes for different folks. Maybe K1 is more your style if you're looking for KOs. And I'm not trying to be condescending when I say that, I just say it because I enjoy MMA as is.
Shields vs. Hendo I wasn't really mad about. If anything, it upsets me that Shields can't punch his way out of a wetpaper bag with scissors in his hands, but that's a completely different thread.
Mousasi vs. King Mo was embarrassing to both parties, imo. Both were out of shape and both were complacent in the ring.
And are you really going to give GSP a pass? He stepped it up against BJ and Serra, two opponents he had a grudge toward. But when he doesn't have that eye of the tiger, he also gets complacent in the cage.
You've got me all wrong if you think I'm advocating a wrestler standing toe-to-toe with a muay thai or boxing specialist, and I don't mind decisions if it was a highly competitive fight. But when I see the opportunity for a superior fighter to finish his opponent and he's content with riding out a decision, it bugs the fuck out of me. It's boring and it's just not right.
Fighters NEED to entertain, period.
You can lose and keep your job and your fans, if you have heart and entertain.
Look at Chuck, Wandy, etc...
Guys can get losses and maintain a career.
Obviously you want to not be a complete idiot out there,
but IMO if you're not willing to take any risks you shouldn't be a professional fighter,
the "legends" in this sport are the guys who lay it on the line. 10 years from now nobody will be talking about the guys with 6 and 8 decisions in a row.
Yes, professional sports is a form of entertainment. If the sport is not entertaining, less people will watch and vice versa. Pro MMA is a professional sport. UFC became so popular because it was considered entertaining by the audience. And as we know, the fighters that are more entertaining tend to be more popular.
With that said, winning is also a very large contributor to a fighters popularity. Let's be honest, people like winners. A fighter can be very entertaining before, during and after a fight but if he loses all the time he will not be very popular. A fighter who is boring but wins will be mildly popular.
Fighters who loose but keep their job only do so because they have a long history of winning previously. How many entertaining fighters with losing records are in the UFC?
Herring In A Fur Coat - So to sum it up, fighters have to find a way to win AND be enterntaining if they want to be successfull. Just like every other pro athlete in every other pro sport.
agreed
sweetagony - How many entertaining fighters with losing records are in the UFC?
Chuck Liddell is 1-4 in last 5 fights yet he will be headlining a card with Rich Franklin in a couple of months.
Wanderlei Silva is 2-3 since coming to the UFC but was the co-main event last time around (and really his record was 1-3 when he was booked for the co-main).
And plenty of fighters like Clay Guida and Chris Lytle who despite winning more than half of their fights (26-11 and 28-17-5 respectively), don't exactly have the most stellar records. They are brought in time after time because they are both talented and are viewed as being exciting.
sweetagony - Yes, professional sports is a form of entertainment. If the sport is not entertaining, less people will watch and vice versa. Pro MMA is a professional sport. UFC became so popular because it was considered entertaining by the audience. And as we know, the fighters that are more entertaining tend to be more popular.
With that said, winning is also a very large contributor to a fighters popularity. Let's be honest, people like winners. A fighter can be very entertaining before, during and after a fight but if he loses all the time he will not be very popular. A fighter who is boring but wins will be mildly popular.
Fighters who loose but keep their job only do so because they have a long history of winning previously. How many entertaining fighters with losing records are in the UFC?
Lyoto Machida is not a popular fighter and he's undefeated. Before his last three fights, his decisions have not been reacted to kindly. Rashad Evans is another fighter that comes to mind. Until he opened up, he was the least popular TUF winner. Anderson Silva is quickly losing his bandwagon.
And as for lovable losers, what about Chris Leben? Stephan Bonnar? Phil Baroni? Hell, if Nick Diaz wasn't such a fuck-up, he'd still be in the UFC, and his record was less than impressive. Being an entertaining fighter, win or lose, will always get you a call back.
Herring In A Fur Coat - So to sum it up, fighters have to find a way to win AND be enterntaining if they want to be successfull. Just like every other pro athlete in every other pro sport.
Nailed it.
/thread