Dan Hardy: Taking on Greg Jackson's Fighters Gets Boring

MMAPlayground.com » Community » MMA News Share Forum » Dan Hardy: Taking on Greg Jackson's Fighters Gets Boring
emfleek
10/12/10 2:22:49PM
When Dan Hardy steps into the Octagon to fight Carlos Condit at UFC 120 on Sunday, he'll be facing his second straight opponent who has Greg Jackson in his corner. The last time the fight didn't go so well, and Hardy is concerned that it won't go so well this time, either.

That's not to say that Hardy, who's coming off a loss to UFC welterweight champion Georges St. Pierre in March, is worried about losing to Condit -- he says he's confident that he'll win. But Hardy says he doesn't like the fighting style that Jackson teaches, and he believes Jackson-trained fighters exercise far too much caution in the cage.

"My biggest concern is that he'll fight a Greg Jackson style fight and run away for 15 minutes," Hardy said in a live chat with MMAFighting.com readers. "It's not that I don't like Greg Jackson's style but I don't like fighting guys he trains because they always take the safest route and that gets boring, they want to send it to the judges and that gets boring after a while."

LINK
seanfu
10/12/10 2:45:23PM
Strategy!!! Anything but that!!!!!
Chuteboxer
10/12/10 3:46:02PM
Nothing wrong with strategy at all; that's why Randy's been so successful. However, I wanna watch fights where the fighter finishes his opponent, and not playing it safe and going for a decision win. I mean, it is called a fight for a reason...
machodog76
10/12/10 5:25:00PM
As a fan I can see Dan's point, just look at GSP then and now. I don't think Jackson fighters are going only for the decision though. I just think they fight smart and leave little chance of getting caught which seems to end up a decision more often that not. It's hard for me to get to down on guys for employing this kind of stategy when the UFC is so competitive and 1 loss can send a guy packing.
Bloodhound
10/12/10 5:31:02PM
Greg Jackson has been really coming under alot of criticism because of the way his fighters fight lately. I understand putting together a good gameplan to win a fight but eventually showsmanship has to come into play, I mean its only so long you can squeak out close decisions in boring fashion and still maintain a good fan base.
Jackelope
10/12/10 5:39:43PM
I mean do we seriously believe that Carlos Condit of all people is going to avoid a fight? All the guy does every time he steps into the Octagon is bring it. He's fought under the Greg Jackson banner before and he didn't back away then. Why would he now? I just can't see Condit doing that.

Anyways, there has certainly been a lot of hate for Greg Jackson fighters lately but there are things you can do to mitigate a distance and control based game plan. Why don't these guys start kicking legs, cutting off angles, etc? Don't blame your inability to implement a gameplan on their strategy.
seanfu
10/12/10 6:05:19PM

Posted by Bloodhound

Greg Jackson has been really coming under alot of criticism because of the way his fighters fight lately. I understand putting together a good gameplan to win a fight but eventually showsmanship has to come into play, I mean its only so long you can squeak out close decisions in boring fashion and still maintain a good fan base.



This ^^^

And if you hate how guys are fighting maybe you can blame the shitty judges, reffing, and politics for ruining north american mma for everyone.

1 loss and it can take forever to get another shot, 1 loss and there's a more exciting fan favorite of a champ so you don't get another shot.

When it is more beneficial to lay and pray/ cage and pray/ pitter patter and run because damage and aggression dont mean anything in the fight and your only penalty is a standup then maybe the sport deserves what it gets.

This is why Japan puts a card together with a quarter the talent for twice the bang regularly.
Jackelope
10/12/10 6:18:32PM

Posted by seanfu

And if you hate how guys are fighting maybe you can blame the shitty judges, reffing, and politics for ruining north american mma for everyone.

1 loss and it can take forever to get another shot, 1 loss and there's a more exciting fan favorite of a champ so you don't get another shot.

When it is more beneficial to lay and pray/ cage and pray/ pitter patter and run because damage and aggression dont mean anything in the fight and your only penalty is a standup then maybe the sport deserves what it gets.

This is why Japan puts a card together with a quarter the talent for twice the bang regularly.



I basically agree with all of that as well.

That being said, I do still believe that fighters need to start putting together techniques to counter this style. I mean look at Shogun. He did it to Machida. Why can't other fighters impose their will?
zephead
10/12/10 6:21:10PM
The Flinstones have some really great fights
seanfu
10/12/10 7:38:27PM

Posted by Jackelope


Posted by seanfu

And if you hate how guys are fighting maybe you can blame the shitty judges, reffing, and politics for ruining north american mma for everyone.

1 loss and it can take forever to get another shot, 1 loss and there's a more exciting fan favorite of a champ so you don't get another shot.

When it is more beneficial to lay and pray/ cage and pray/ pitter patter and run because damage and aggression dont mean anything in the fight and your only penalty is a standup then maybe the sport deserves what it gets.

This is why Japan puts a card together with a quarter the talent for twice the bang regularly.



I basically agree with all of that as well.

That being said, I do still believe that fighters need to start putting together techniques to counter this style. I mean look at Shogun. He did it to Machida. Why can't other fighters impose their will?



Look at Frankie Edgar vs Matt Veach, he is much better in the standup but it means nothing without knockout power. I think Shogun's knockout power made the difference for sure.

Not everyone can do that imo. Look at it, constantly guys who just don't have natural power lose because without it their standup is not feared

It's why Hendo's atrocious technique is dangerous, because he only needs to land 1.
warglory
10/12/10 7:53:39PM
I completely disagree with anyone who disagrees with Jacksons methods. This isn't the WWE, this is a sport. If you fight solely for the purpose of trying to beat someone down without evolving, you turn into Wanderlei Silva or Chuck Liddell. And speaking of Silva, he didn't beat Bisping because he was reckless, he beat Bisping because he fought the smartest fight he has ever fought in his career.

Many fans seem to have a bit of a selfish attitude in that they "expect" the fighters to fight the way they want them to, instead of the fans learning to appreciate the way those fighters fight. Did the old Wandy and Chuck put on exciting fights? Yes, but they also got beat up, and are older beyond their years in terms of the abuse they have received. Everyone thinks Randy is this superhuman machine, but the reason why he is still capable of fighting into his mid 40's is because he fights smart, and has always fought smart. I have no doubt that if fighters like Machida and GSP want to fight into their 40's, they probably could, yet fighters like Shogun will probably be out of fighting within the next two years. People have to understand this is a fighter's chosen career, and they need to make enough money to subsist on after they retire. This same theory applies to NFL players, who if you can get 5 years in the league, you have had a successful career, but unlike the NFL, fighters don't have to collide into one another week after week, they can choose how their careers unfold. To expect fighters or their trainers to "put on a show" is ridiculously selfish in my opinion. Hell, most mma fans still find the ground game boring, and mistake wrestling transitions and ground n pound as lay n pray, which is a telltale sign they never watched the UFC in the early years.
Bloodhound
10/12/10 8:32:59PM
I Agree with the people defending the Greg Jackson style in the sense that I think if the fighter wants fight a boring gameplan it is there right to and their opponent should force them out of that gameplan but at the same time those fighters shouldnt say anything or complain when they get criticized buy fans or other fighters, And the ground game is very exciting imo but when you got casual fans watchin Rashad Evans & Jon Fitch doing the LnP decision style fighting with absolutely no activity otuside of getting takedowns and holding their opponent on the floor its gonna drive the casual fan away for the sport so I don't think its good for the sport. If your gonna take the guy to the floor actively attempt to pass guard, GnP, go for submissions. But hey if you dont want to do that and just fight a very LnP style dont expect to bring in any news fans or garner much respect from fans. at the end of the day fighters can fight how they want with the current judging system but if you fight that Greg Jackson style expect to get criticized.
FlashyG
10/12/10 8:57:46PM
Hardy talks a lot of smack about finishing fights for a guy whose only got one finish in his 5 UFC outings.

Sounds like he's trying a long shot ploy to get Condit to stand and trade with him.
haggiswashere
10/12/10 10:24:22PM

Posted by FlashyG

Hardy talks a lot of smack about finishing fights for a guy whose only got one finish in his 5 UFC outings.

Sounds like he's trying a long shot ploy to get Condit to stand and trade with him.



My thoughts too. I think he is just trying to get under condits skin. Thats just how he is.
machodog76
10/12/10 10:53:12PM

Posted by FlashyG

Hardy talks a lot of smack about finishing fights for a guy whose only got one finish in his 5 UFC outings.

Sounds like he's trying a long shot ploy to get Condit to stand and trade with him.

Good call I handn't thought of that, I think you're right! I don't think one needs to coax Condit into a stand up war though.
Jackelope
10/13/10 1:00:08AM

Posted by warglory

I completely disagree with anyone who disagrees with Jacksons methods. This isn't the WWE, this is a sport. If you fight solely for the purpose of trying to beat someone down without evolving, you turn into Wanderlei Silva or Chuck Liddell. And speaking of Silva, he didn't beat Bisping because he was reckless, he beat Bisping because he fought the smartest fight he has ever fought in his career.

Many fans seem to have a bit of a selfish attitude in that they "expect" the fighters to fight the way they want them to, instead of the fans learning to appreciate the way those fighters fight. Did the old Wandy and Chuck put on exciting fights? Yes, but they also got beat up, and are older beyond their years in terms of the abuse they have received. Everyone thinks Randy is this superhuman machine, but the reason why he is still capable of fighting into his mid 40's is because he fights smart, and has always fought smart. I have no doubt that if fighters like Machida and GSP want to fight into their 40's, they probably could, yet fighters like Shogun will probably be out of fighting within the next two years. People have to understand this is a fighter's chosen career, and they need to make enough money to subsist on after they retire. This same theory applies to NFL players, who if you can get 5 years in the league, you have had a successful career, but unlike the NFL, fighters don't have to collide into one another week after week, they can choose how their careers unfold. To expect fighters or their trainers to "put on a show" is ridiculously selfish in my opinion. Hell, most mma fans still find the ground game boring, and mistake wrestling transitions and ground n pound as lay n pray, which is a telltale sign they never watched the UFC in the early years.



You bring up some good points, and they're points I've thought of many times in the past, but I want to put a different and logic based spin on the side of the argument for more exciting fighters.

Now, I don't have a lot of time so you'll have to read between the lines on a lot of these (setting myself up for failure with most playgrounders I'm sure, but I trust that you're a smart enough guy to read between the lines)

Are fighter salaries based on what the sport as a whole takes in, or are they based purely on winning? There is evidence to support either side of that argument and it can be spun however you want if you like to play with statistics, but while reading this post just keep in mind that it IS possible a fighter can earn more money from a shorter career through fighting with an exciting style.

It should also be kept in mind that martial arts and conflicts in general throughout history have always been *Using martial arts terms* tiger-based philosophy or crane based philosophy. (This applies to individual fighters and armies as a whole) In ancient Japan many warlord tactics were more crane based, and in Europe tactics were more tiger based. Each have seen their own amounts of success and the continuous thought process even to this day has always been that each has their own merits and a master of either one can top the other on any given day depending on their proficiency.

Many people who follow martial philosophy know the saying "The best defense is a good offense" which is basically an aspect of the tiger philosophy. So it is very possible that someone can effectively achieve the same dominance without taking as much damage as, say GSP, with an offensive oriented game plan. All that matters, and all that has ever mattered throughout history, is how proficient you are at implementing your style of fighting. Ultimately that is the essence of the tiger vs. Crane struggle which is always fluctuating and either side is always either gaining on or losing to the other. What I'm getting at is that if you're a Jackson fighter (Crane) you CAN be beaten by a Chute Box type fighter (Tiger) and potentially, if one is proficient enough, it can be done without taking much damage.

The reason why I take a somewhat neutral stance on this issue is because there are other dynamics like the scoring system, the goal of the UFC as a company (to put on exciting fights and make lots of $$), etc. I personally think the UFC needs to do a better job of educating the fan base in the more intricate parts of the game that are perhaps to the novice viewer perceived as more "boring". That being said, I also understand this is a business trying to make money, they attempted that with the old Eddie Bravo stuff (it failed) and have slipped into a more comfortable, profitable business model which is to promote exciting fights and the intricacies be damned.

Ultimately, although my stance is neutral and I see both sides, I feel it is on the individual fighters who wish to complain about this issue to press their style instead of complaining. But as it pertains to the company as a whole and the fan base- I really don't know the answer. I wish one way, but see the reality that is the other way.

And for the record, I think Hardy is just playing his typical mind games, too... but it makes for interesting debate.
Rush
10/13/10 1:52:54AM

Greg Jackson has been really coming under alot of criticism because of the way his fighters fight lately. I understand putting together a good gameplan to win a fight but eventually showsmanship has to come into play, I mean its only so long you can squeak out close decisions in boring fashion and still maintain a good fan base.


Gotta disagree here. From the fighters' standpoint, showmanship will have less and less to do with it as time progresses. I think as the fans become more educated they will start to understand that MMA is more than a cockfight. From the trainer's perspective, they make money by helping their fighters win fights, not how to be liked by fans. Lastly, when was the last time GSP had a close decision win? It was his win over Penn in their first fight and a) I have previously provided my reasoning why it wasn't as close as some people say and b) he wasn't with Jackson's at that time and the decision was in no way brought forth by a "safe strategy".




re fighter salaries based on what the sport as a whole takes in, or are they based purely on winning? There is evidence to support either side of that argument and it can be spun however you want if you like to play with statistics, but while reading this post just keep in mind that it IS possible a fighter can earn more money from a shorter career through fighting with an exciting style.



I have to disagree. I feel like I have answered this comment before (deja vu). lol I think this was how it was maybe 5+ years ago. I don't think it is the way it is now.

I think the way the sport has evolved is such that you can make a decent paycheque being "exciting", but the way the UFC rolls is that you will not be around long to keep cashing them. Look at GSP, I don't think most fans noticed him until he won the title. How many wins did he need to string together to get there? Titles are rarely won with "reckless" fighting tactics.

It's really hard to compare the raw numbers though, due to these "hidden revenues" that Dana speaks of, but I think that a long standing champion that plays it safe is going to have a longer and more prosperous career being a smart fighter first and a flashy fighter second.



The reason why I take a somewhat neutral stance on this issue is because there are other dynamics like the scoring system, the goal of the UFC as a company (to put on exciting fights and make lots of $$), etc. I personally think the UFC needs to do a better job of educating the fan base in the more intricate parts of the game that are perhaps to the novice viewer perceived as more "boring". That being said, I also understand this is a business trying to make money, they attempted that with the old Eddie Bravo stuff (it failed) and have slipped into a more comfortable, profitable business model which is to promote exciting fights and the intricacies be damned.



I don't know Jackelope. The UFC has no control over how a fight is going to go down in the ring. They can anticipate style match ups, but to be honest, I have not seen a strong correlation between exciting fights and the names that go into selling a card. i.e. There are times where the main events are great and the undercard is uninteresting and vice versa. Just like it's hard to predict a winner in MMA, I think it is hard to predict weather a fight will be exciting.


That being said, I understand the premise that they want interesting fighters to sell events, but a) For example, people will want to watch a fighter like GSP because they want to see him win or they want to see how someone beats him, irregardless of whether he is labeled as a boring fight or not, a bad guy or good guy, etc. b) I think the UFC has gotten to a point where they would have to put together several epic fail cards to lose a fanbase large enough where they take a serious hit. In other words, I think the UFC is big enough that they will sell events and get butts in the seats no matter who is on the poster. A loss of fans, IMO, will have little to do with the UFC's fighter stock in terms of how they fight. Similarly, I don't think there were empty seats in the NJ Devils' arena during playoff seasons because they played the trap (I'll leave the fact that Toronto vs. NJ games were some of the most exciting hockey I watched prior to the new CBA), but rather I think it had to do with other issues.



Ultimately, although my stance is neutral and I see both sides, I feel it is on the individual fighters who wish to complain about this issue to press their style instead of complaining. But as it pertains to the company as a whole and the fan base- I really don't know the answer. I wish one way, but see the reality that is the other way.


I agree. I think fans need to understand that this is how most of these guys put food on the table and the fighters not only deserve the benefit of the doubt, but also freedom (of criticism) to approach a fight in a way they see fit. Do I wish every fight was a KO. slug fest or sub clinic? No way. That would also get old. We just don't see it as often so we don't talk about it. The thing that I find interesting about MMA is that every fight is so very much unpredictable in not only how it is approached by the fighters (i.e. game plans), but how certain things can come out of the blue and surprise you. I certainly do not find all fighters interesting to watch, but I would not exclude their fight from watching a card because of that.
Jackelope
10/13/10 2:38:10AM
Appreciate the organized response even if we disagree on some issues. (although it seems we definitely agree on others)

Look, before I say any more I want to be very clear about the fact that this is a multi-faceted issue and one that requires an extensive look into the sport and fans. I've considered many of these things in my mind but there's no way I would ever waste the time to type them out since the semantics of them could be argued all day. And in any case I'm in no position to change the way things are going so ultimately my opinion doesn't matter. But as I said before- it makes for interesting debate.

To argue some of your points without going into ridiculous length detail I would bring up fighters like Chris Lytle to prove you can have longevity, make tons of money whilst remaining out of the title picture, and ultimately have a great career.

I would also like to bring up the following examples- NFL, NHL, and MLB. Although I think what applies to these sports applies even further to MMA because of the fact that fans pay $50 just to watch an event on TV. Whereas the other sports are basically free.

MLB- Has failed to adapt to the continuously diminishing attention span of the American consumer. Because of this the ratings are absolutely terrible. I mean abso-f'ing-lutely terrible. Compared to what baseball was 20, 30 or even 50 years ago it is absolutely unreal. They have continuously failed to meet the demands of such an easily distracted fan base. This is a relevant comparison because I think if the UFC (and MMA in general) does not promote a progressive, exciting product then the fan base will eventually die out. I think you give far too much credit to the "fans" when you say you think they will eventually understand. For God's sake people still don't understand baseball. How could you expect them to understand MMA?

NHL- Always has been an exciting sport to watch, but again it has struggled. Games have gone from being on regular broadcast TV to that channel nobody knows the numbers for- VS. ESPN barely talks about Hockey, the ratings are down, and in a time when it has been more exciting than ever it is still not really taking off with the general public. Franchises are losing money left and right. This is a relevant comparison because it just goes to show that even with an exciting product the fans can lose interest. You always need to promote the more interesting parts of the game and in the case of the UFC lobby governing bodies to tailor rules towards those interesting parts of the game in the world we live in today because I'm telling you right now people's attention span is pathetic.

NFL- Now this is an organization that has taken a progressive stance towards its fan base. It doesn't "only just so happen" that they're also the most successful sports league out there. All franchises make ridiculous money, the TV contracts are absolutely unreal, and the fans are as rabid as ever as we've even witnessed on these boards. This is because they've tailored their rules towards offense (even though I personally hate it) the league and media promotes stars who play aggressively, and ultimately give the fans what they want. Not like MLB.

I personally feel NFL model is especially relevant because I think when the UFC talks about putting on exciting fights and becoming a premiere org this is one of the models they're looking at trying to be like. Look at the Jets vs. Vikings game last night. The Jets defense played amazing (for most of the game), and the team got the win. But who do you think they're talking about today on ESPN radio and in the media? Brett Favre and the Vikings with their 3 exciting, offensive, aggressive touchdown passes. Even though they lost.

Take UFC 117 for example. Fitch vs. Alves was one of the most talked about rematches and had such huge implications within that division. Yet nobody talks about that fight and the outcome now that it's over. However, people are still talking about Sonnen vs. Silva and JDS vs. Roy Nelson. People could care less about Fitch beating Alves because in their opinion he put on a boring fight. Even though title wise it had massive implications.

So, I personally think it's a ridiculous oversight and/or giving wayyyyy too much credit to the fan base to think they'll become educated and learn to appreciate the finer, more "boring" parts of the sport. I think there are plenty of examples out there of this. Hardcore MLB fans and an "old timer's" approach being the most blatant example of how hardcore fans can stymie progress and growth of a sport. So yes, exciting fights are very important.

(Sorry if it got disjointed midway through. Family Guy came on.. haha)
icantthinkofanything
10/13/10 12:05:38PM
If GSP can win a fight by holding Hardy down with his pinky finger, so be it. If a fight is boring, it is because the looser didnt have enough skills to overcome a great strategy. This is a pro sport. Loosers get ish canned after 1 or 2 losses. Winners get millions and title shots. Fighting to win, out point and at the same time avoiding any attack by your opponent is common sense.

dont blame the coaches like GJ for being smarter and making great gameplans and champ's. blame yourself for having no gg, or bjj.
Rush
10/13/10 4:06:14PM
But Jackelope, the problem still remains, that there is not much the UFC can do about it.

One could implement or change rules to try and create a more exciting set of fights. However, the commission has the final say on all these. The commission oversees the fights, but they really don't have the financial finger in the cookie jar. I see no reason for them to go out on a limb and change rules that might favour the UFC making money, but put the fighters' safety at risk, etc. Added to which, the UFC has implemented bonuses like FOTN, KOTN, SOTN, yet has it really helped make the fights "less boring"?

The problem I have with the examples you supplied is that many of the problems baseball faces (for example) is a fundamental issue with the game. There are limitations, innate to the game, which are "holding it back". Trying to address these issues will essentially change the game to the point where it is not the same sport.

With hockey, the NHL tried to make things more exciting by changing the rules to try and produce more goals and a faster game. Personally, I don't find the game any more exciting and in fact I find it less exciting.

I have never watched American football so I can' t make a comment on that.


You're probably right about me giving the fans too much credit. However, as it is right now I think the onus is really on the fans. The fighters are in a position where they need to do put food on the table during and after their short career. I think the UFC of course wants to make more money (whichever way they can), but has limited power in terms of changing the sport to better suit that. That really comes back to the fans. Like fans of baseball, hockey, etc. they have to accept the shortcomings of their sport or otherwise be prepared to watch it fizzle away to nothingness. You say,


because I'm telling you right now people's attention span is pathetic


and I totally agree. But again, I think we are approaching a tipping point with respect to this and the expectations of movies, sports, all kinds of entertainment. Eventually, people's needs/wants will have to adjust or face the probability of a particular industry/sport collapsing or turning into something that is far removed from the original product. For example, 3D technology is great and excellent films can be produced using such technology, but as people's needs and expectations for this increase it will shift focus from the fundamental aspects of what makes a good movie really work. I think the fans will be forced to evolve with the sport (or whatever) or suffer disappointment when it hits the tipping point.

Maybe it's just me, but I like watching a good old fashioned running race more than a race where the runners had to dodge monkeys with lasers attached to their heads through big loops of flames.
Jackelope
10/13/10 5:27:04PM

Posted by Rush

But Jackelope, the problem still remains, that there is not much the UFC can do about it.



Well, just so you know I did address that in my post by saying that the UFC should put their efforts towards lobbying for new rules if they really want to change the culture. I know it's not a decision they can make themselves. I do think they have a lot of sway, though.

I also want to reiterate once again that I'm not necessarily in favor of the thought process that Greg Jackson fighters are boring. I'm just trying to be realistic about this situation since if 2 million people buy a PPV it's my personal opinion (and it's probably not far off from the mark) that only maybe about 10% of those fans are truly knowledgeable fans who understand the intricacies of a so-called "snooze fest". (I think 10% might even be a generous figure to be honest)

When money talks like it does in American business I think the UFC is paying more attention to the 90% than the 10%. So yeah, the onus is on the fans, but 90% of the fans want more aggression and finishes. I think that's pretty much the fans taking their stance. It is a business' purpose to meet the demand of its customers. That is economics 101. If you try to take a different approach- give them something they don't want - your business will fail almost guaranteed. Especially in this economy. No offense, but if you're applying to be CEO for my multi-billion dollar corporation with the attitude that the fans need to learn to appreciate the product and not that we need to meet the demands of our customer base then I'm going to tell you to make sure the door doesn't hit you in the ass on the way out. I'm not even going to give you an interview.

Now, having said that I will also say that I do think fighter safety is paramount. I'm not personally in favor of rule changes like knees to downed opponents' heads. I think you can address the excitement level of the sport without changing the rules to make it more dangerous. One of the things I'm in favor of doing is changing the wording from "effective aggression" to "effort to finish". Veteran playground members have heard me say this dozens of times over. I can be aggressive by taking you down 100 times in a fight, but that doesn't mean I'm trying to finish you. Just put you on your butt. As opposed to throwing up a triangle choke attempt from the bottom being an effort to finish you.
mojo
10/13/10 11:38:27PM
Lets not forget Donald Cerrone is a GJ fighter and he is anything but boring, but he still had a strategy in his last fight, Jackson told him not to take a backwards step, that was the strategy that works for a guy like Cerrone. Same with Jon Jones, he has a strategy that is not boring. Using strategy does not always equate to a boring style, it means working to the fighter's strengths.
FlashyG
10/13/10 11:48:25PM

Posted by Rush
a race where the runners had to dodge monkeys with lasers attached to their heads through big loops of flames.



Link Please
Rush
10/14/10 12:04:19AM

Posted by Jackelope

When money talks like it does in American business I think the UFC is paying more attention to the 90% than the 10%. So yeah, the onus is on the fans, but 90% of the fans want more aggression and finishes. I think that's pretty much the fans taking their stance. It is a business' purpose to meet the demand of its customers. That is economics 101. If you try to take a different approach- give them something they don't want - your business will fail almost guaranteed. Especially in this economy. No offense, but if you're applying to be CEO for my multi-billion dollar corporation with the attitude that the fans need to learn to appreciate the product and not that we need to meet the demands of our customer base then I'm going to tell you to make sure the door doesn't hit you in the ass on the way out. I'm not even going to give you an interview.

Now, having said that I will also say that I do think fighter safety is paramount. I'm not personally in favor of rule changes like knees to downed opponents' heads. I think you can address the excitement level of the sport without changing the rules to make it more dangerous. One of the things I'm in favor of doing is changing the wording from "effective aggression" to "effort to finish". Veteran playground members have heard me say this dozens of times over. I can be aggressive by taking you down 100 times in a fight, but that doesn't mean I'm trying to finish you. Just put you on your butt. As opposed to throwing up a triangle choke attempt from the bottom being an effort to finish you.



Well, for the record I didn't ignore your comment on the lobbying. It just lacked a specific idea from which to build.

I am not saying that the UFC is not choosing to meet the demands of their customer base, I am saying that they don't have many (if any) options to do so. And even if they do, I believe the final product will not be for the better because a) there isn't much more that can be changed to increase the excitement level unless you start adding frills b) the fans that are bitching now, will never be satisfied. I mean, do you think everyone will be thrilled to see every fight end with a first round T(KO)? I don't see how things can be modified to get the best of everything. I think it is unrealistic to think that.

I am totally in favour of your idea, but I don't think it will fix the issue at hand.

First off, I do think it would help eliminate some controversial judging scores, but I don't think it will necessarily make the fights less "boring"

For one, there is the issue of aggression and ground grappling. IMO, high level BJJ does not appear to be aggressive because its a matter of setting your opponent up with fakes or subtle movements. I don't see how judges would be able to determine whether a fighter is setting up their opponent or not being aggressive until the fight is over.

Second, using the example of GSP (considering he is one of the more criticized), I don't see how his game could be any more aggressive from the top. Certainly some fighters might change their styles under such a rule change, but I don't see GSP needing to.

Third, fighters will find a way to work within the rules and find a way to accommodate their style and rules. In other words, a rule change might fix the "problem" in one way, but open up another can of worms.


I am happy to agree to disagree. I am content with the sport as is. There are some times it sucks, and some times it doesn't, but that is the nature of the beast. IMO, everything in life is like that.
Rush
10/14/10 12:18:59AM

Posted by FlashyG


Posted by Rush
a race where the runners had to dodge monkeys with lasers attached to their heads through big loops of flames.



Link Please




www.monkeyswithlasers.com
AfroSamuraiTHEBEAST
10/14/10 6:32:57PM
Hardy is right. When you have all the ability in the world to put on a good fight and finish an opponent then do it.

However, Carlos Condit isn't one of Greg jacksons boring fighters. No matter what his fights always end up insane and crazy so I don't think he has to worry about a boring fight this time around.

And I think Condit beats him.
AfroSamuraiTHEBEAST
10/14/10 6:34:31PM

Posted by warglory
And speaking of Silva, he didn't beat Bisping because he was reckless, he beat Bisping because he fought the smartest fight he has ever fought in his career.



I have to disagree. If Wandy was the old Wandy he would of KO'd Bisping. Because everytime he did get aggressive he hurt Bisping.
Related Topics