Apr 22, 2009 - 11:53:45 PM By Wade Keller, Torch editor
I was frustrated watching Anderson Silva's fight on Saturday night, too. The more the fight went on, though, the more frustrated I grew with the announcing and the fans. But in the heat of the moment, I could understand disappointment on everyone's part that two fighters weren't going at it to win, but rather they were fighting to survive. One was fighting to keep his title no matter what and the other was fighting to go the distance with a heralded champion since he determined early in the fight that he had almost no chance to win.
MMA is a sport. Some people don't like that we give star ratings to fights because they think MMA is so pure a sport, nobody should ever label a fight good or bad, exciting or boring (and that's all star-ratings are - shorthand for adjectives such as those), because all that matters is winning and losing. The outrage this week aimed at Silva and Leites is somewhat founded, but even more so dangerous. It's a case of fans demanding a four-star fight in a main event, even if that meant asking one or two fighters to act against their best interests and the integrity of their sport.
UFC, of course, would thrive more if all main event fights were exciting, if all fighters went all-out and played aggressively on offense and loosely on defense, taking chances that often would lead to a big KO but sometimes would lead to a preventable loss had they been more conservative.
UFC fans would get what they want more than anything, which is a big knockout or dramatic tapout or even a grueling, hard-fought, back-and-forth time-limit decision. But MMA can't guarantee that any more than the NBA can guarantee best of seven finals will go seven games, including several overtimes or last-second buzzer beaters. Sometimes there are blowouts. Sometimes stars don't play in the fourth quarter because the score is so lopsided and risking injury would be stupid. Late in the NFL season, I've been at games as a Minnesota VIkings season ticket holder when starters were benched because playoff positioning had already been decided and there was no sense risking injury. It's accepted as part of the game, even though a lot of fans payed money for expense tickets in the stadium to watch week 17 action.
Anderson Silva by round three had the fight won. He might have felt he had it won by half way into round one. He had the equivalent of a 42-3 lead at halftime. He did the equivalent of benching the starters in the fourth quarter. He did the equivalent of handing the ball off to a reliable running back who doesn't fumble and running out the clock. He did what a smart athlete does to win the game. He got the winning purse, he kept his title, he kept his reputation headed into a possible dream fight against George St. Pierre.
Had Anderson gone balls-out and "put on a show for the fans" - as the fans in the arena, as Joe Rogan and Mike Goldberg addressed (Goldberg was more measured here and had his best outing as an announcer in a while after increasingly shaky performances in recent years), and as commentators and bloggers have called for since - he might have lost. He probably wouldn't have lost, but he might have. His odds of winning by fighting the way he fought was about 99 percent. His odds of winning if he fought the way the critics of the fight wanted, he had a 90 percent chance of winning. He had a lot to lose, so why increase his chance of losing ten-fold?
Some would say: To please the fans, the ones who pay his salary, the ones who travelled great distances to see him fight, the ones who might not buy his next fight because he held back.
That's a fair argument. After all, UFC charges a lot of money for PPVs and fans want to be entertained with great shows each time.
UFC, though, is a real sport. It's not pro wrestling where fans are 100 percent justified in expecting great match performances every time. It's not the movies where the audience is justified in expecting a well-acted, well-directed, well-paced, well-produced, dramatic show every time.
The price UFC fans pay for seeing something unpredictable and totally real is that sometimes, in the course of fighters trying to win - or better put, not risk losing (Silva) or not risk getting hurt and humiliated (Leites) - the fight isn't very exciting.
If UFC changes the rules and begins scoring fights in part on excitement level, in part on quantity and quality of punches and kicks thrown, and is willing to strip a champion of a title for being boring, then maybe fans will get better fights. But fans will no longer know who the better fighters are. They'll just learn from UFC fights who the more exciting performers are. Is that what UFC fans want? Is that what's best for the sport in the long run?
UFC is successful in part because of the perceived integrity of the sport. It's successful because a lot of times fights are extremely exciting or end with dramatic conclusions. Over time, those conclusions will be less dramatic if they seem manufactured or forced. And the sport will be less appealing to many if it seems to lack integrity.
Royce Gracie hated time-limits and stand-ups when they were instituted in UFC. He felt the integrity of an MMA fight was dependent on two fighters with almost no rules battling to a finish no matter how long it took and what direction it went. Heck, Joe Rogan has spoken out against stand-ups during fights on UFC PPVs because he believes refs have been prematurely standing up ground fighters for the sake of making fights "more exciting."
The sport has already made compromises for the sake of marketability and survival by instituting rounds, limiting certain moves, and forcing stand-ups during perceived stalemates on the ground. It's going too far, though, when the sport begins to demand that a champion fighting within the rules risks his well-being and his title in order to give the fans what they want at that moment. His goal should not be to entertain the fans, it should be to win fights. No NFL coach would keep his job if he lost a big fourth quarter lead because he decided to start passing every down to excite the fans and it resulted in multiple interceptions for touchdowns that flipped the score and lost the game.
UFC is doing just fine financially, and it always will as long as the sport has integrity. It would do better if all fights were exciting, and in as much as that's possible to encourage without crippling the sense that better skilled, more disciplined and prepared fighters are winning the vast majority of the time, then the sport will be fine. UFC cannot guarantee exciting fights all the time without taking away the main draw of the sport - that it presents real fights with deserving winners.
UFC would draw better if all of its top stars were charismatic and exciting fighters who were either passionately liked or disliked by the audience. Ideally they'd all speak English well, connect with fans on some level, and do great pre-fight interviews. It'd be great if the good looking fighters were likable and the ugly ones were naturally easy to hate. But that's not reality, that's pro wrestling. Sometimes an awkward uncharismatic Tim Silvia beats a more marketable Andre Arlovski. Sometimes a potential great rivalry like Anderson Silva vs. Rich Franklin turns out disappointingly one-sided. Sometimes a hugely well known established star like Chuck Liddell loses his chin and gets knocked out repeatedly before all of his big money dream fights can take place.
There's nothing UFC can do about it other than keep producing cards filled with the best fighters against the best fighters and hope for the best. It doesn't always work out, but MMA will survive some bad main events and some boring fight cards. It will not survive as a respected, legitimate sport if severe compromises are made in order to try to ensure "exciting" main events every month. It will end up being something entirely different than it should be and what its fans actually want it to be. MMA isn't defined by nor should it be defined by any one event. It's an ongoing story, and each UFC card is more akin to a three or four game series in baseball that may or may not be exciting. Each fight card is part of a bigger mosaic with various careers of fighters crossing paths and changing each other's course as part of something larger than just one fight card or one fight.
Outraged fans this week are upset because Anderson Silva didn't compromise the ultimate goal of any ultimate fighter - winning a fight. That's a dangerous threshold to cross. It's the wrong pressure to put on a fighter. He didn't disgrace himself or his sport. What he did is different than what Ken Shamrock and Dan Severn did in UFC's early days when they went to a much more frustrating, much more boring, genuinely disgraceful time limit.
There was no clear winner in that fight. Both fighters were playing not to lose, and thus they both were losers. Silva, on Saturday night, had a clear advantage, and it was up to Leites to try to change that. He needed to be the aggressor and force Silva's hand. Leities chose to preserve his well being and score some sort of small moral victory by surviving five rounds with Silva. He, not Silva, should be criticized. He, not Silva, should pay a price when it comes to future big fights and title shots. He has something to prove now. Someone as great as Silva playing conservatively with a lead in a sport where winning should always be everything has nothing to be ashamed of this week. (And even Silva in the most boring fight is still pretty dazzling, throwing in quick sidekicks to the knee, reverse kicks, and some dancing.)
For fans who want a virtual guarantee of a great show with a great finish, there's always pro wrestling, the movies, or some great books that are out there. Or there's waiting for the reviews of a UFC card to come in before deciding whether to order a replay or wait for the DVD to come out. For fans who want to see a real fight game with real winners and losers, it's time to accept that clunkers occur in UFC from time to time due to injuries, quick knockouts, freak eyelid tears, and yes, great champions winning fights on points against challengers who decide not to show the heart of a champion. It should be part of the reality that makes MMA such a great sport, not a mark against it.
If UFC loses ten percent of its potential audience - heck, even 40 or 50 percent - so be it. UFC's power brokers should put the integrity of the sport first. If that means fewer finicky fans with unrealistic expectations, smaller profits, and smaller payoffs for fighters, so be it. It's the reality. Manipulating that to increase fan satisfaction and increase profits compromises the sport in a way that would be more crippling in the long-run than occasional clunker main events.
***
Wade Keller is the Supervising Editor and Founder of MMATorch.com. He has covered MMA for the Torch since before UFC existed, including Japanese shoot-fight cards such as Pancrase in the early 1990s, plus all of the early UFC PPV events (some of those reports can be found in the MMATorch Flashbacks category). He covered the first UFC event in Las Vegas in person in 2001 and Brock Lesnar's recent return to his hometown Minneapolis when he defeated "Crazyhorse" Heath Herring. He has interviewed Dana White, Mike Goldberg, the original UFC match-maker Art Davie, and others in MMA over the years. He has also been interviewed as an MMA reporter by major newspapers dating back to the mid-1990s. He has trained in karate, judo, and jiu jitsu, with over 12 years of formal martial arts training and tournament fighting. He is a double black stripe belt in tae kwon do.
FAVOR: Would you help MMATorch by taking a short survey to create demographic info for our ad company? CLICK HERE
ALERT: Every Tuesday night, listen to the MMATorch Livecast from 9-10:30 p.m. ET or listen now to the most recent shows by clicking here. Listen live this coming Tuesday as Jamie Penick and Matt Pelkey discuss the latest MMA happenings. Online listen at http://www.blogtalkradio.com/mmatorch or call into the show at 646-716-8090 to either just listen or participate.
While I can agree with what you are saying here, Mr. Keller, I wonder if
looking for the W instead of showing a great performance isn't contrary to
what sport ultimately is.
In my humble opinion, sport is not about winning or losing. The competitive
aspect is meant to fuel the competitor, make him train even harder and try
to become a better athlete. But you will never seen an athlete train to
"just get enough to win", they always train their performance to its best
form. And that's what we, as viewers and fans, would like to see.
Anderson Silva would have looked better in defeat if he went after Leites
like he knows how, but then lost. Here, he looked bad in victory, which
isn't good for anything besides his record.
Look at Stephan Bonnar. He lost his first big fight, against Griffin, yet
became a huge star overnight in the world of MMA. Because he took risks, he
showed how great an fighter he could be.
The integrity of this sport will never shine through lazy showings and
cheap victories. It will shine through performances and fights that we'll
remember for years to come.
That's what sport ultimately is : A commited, engaged and skillful
performance.
CameraManZoomIt
23 Apr 2009, 07:59
Sorry, but 2 guys beating the crap out of each other is hardly a 'sport'
Fight != Sport
thejyav
23 Apr 2009, 08:14
I don't see where the argument that the announcers are pushing for more
action comes from. They had no action going on in the cage and a crowd
crapping all over the match, they had to comment on it. They both
concluded that Silva was fighting smart and while not the most exciting
match it was fighting smart. People were understandably upset because they
spent a lot of money for the fight and the expectations for Silva were very
high but anyone who is furious over this needs to get a life and realize
that this isn't over tanned steroid filled fakes dancing around and winning
when Vince McMahon says so. Real life can't always be drama filled and
perfect. Bad match ups happen. Dana picked a bad match up.
Crash
23 Apr 2009, 08:59
As much as I don't like Dana, he was right for going after both fighters
and admonishing them for not doing their job - which is to fight.
You can get all over Leites for not pushing the action, but then Silvia is
just as much to blame for not closing him out and ending the fight.
It's not necessarily about taking chances, it's about WINNING the fight and
closing your opponent down and showing you have the killer instinct.
If I was GSP, I'd be licking my chops, knowing Silvia will fight smart to
try and save his own belt. It's like they say in the NFL, the prevent
defense only does one thing - it prevents you from winning.
It's true both fighters lost, but Silvia should be taking more of the
blame. True champions play to win, they don't play not to lose.
Daniel H. M.
23 Apr 2009, 09:02
To CameraManZoomIt :
MMA is not "2 guys beating the crap out of each other". It's a fighting
sport requiring technique, athleticism and sportsmanship.
It's not a bar brawl.
Sheff
23 Apr 2009, 09:33
I watched the pay-per-view with a bunch of friends, and while it was
aggravating to see Silva and Leites do anything but fight for most of the
match the other night, I understood Silva's decision to back off him and
play for the win. Dana White runs a business and I understand his desire
to please the fans, but Silva was smart. He didn't deserve the post-fight
criticism.
D
23 Apr 2009, 09:46
I'm not sure why most of the individuals commenting failed to see your
points (perhaps they failed to actually read the article), but I'm grateful
that somebody finally stood up with this position.
Mick Foley
23 Apr 2009, 10:19
Its not the announcers fault. They have Dana White screaming in their head
sets "say damn it! Say it!". Of course UFC is just a bunch of sweaty men in
tights rolling around together while other sweaty men cheer them on. The
whole thing reeks of staff infection and greek bath houses.
Dugan
23 Apr 2009, 13:49
Just wanna quickly say that I agree with the writer of this article
wholeheartedly. Maybe out in the street, the idea is to beat yer opponent
into the sidewalk; in the professional ring, the purpose is to WIN without
putting oneself at unnecessary risk. If anything, Dana White is to blame,
for matching Silva against a tomato can that had no chance of beating the
champ.
John K
23 Apr 2009, 14:28
While I definitely agree that the objective of fighting in UFC is to get a
win, there is one "real sport" analogy that doesn't apply. If I'm a
football fan, I'm not charged $60 to watch the Super Bowl. I'm not
expected to fork over $40 a game to watch the World Series. I'm not even
charged for that week 17 of action when the starters are benched. If the
action in these sporting events is lacking, then that is just part of the
deal.
The problem comes in when you're charging premium prices just to view the
event in your home. If UFC (or even WWE for that matter) was broadcasting
the cards for free, or on HBO, then the argument could be made that it's
all about winning. When you charge a large amount of money to view the
event, other factors such as entertainment value, come into play.
Jared
23 Apr 2009, 15:43
I couldn't agree with this article more. Would I have liked to see a
decisive finish? Of course. But what is Silva supposed to do when Leites
was backing down the whole fight? To suggest that Silva should have pressed
the action at the risk of getting caught is absurd. Who in their right mind
would risk their title and the record for longest win streak in UFC history
in an attempt to please some fans?
As far as earning respect in defeat, GSP's stock didn't rise after he got
pounded out by Serra two years ago. And what's the standard statement given
by a fighter when they get caught and are knocked out? "I made a mistake".
The difference with Silva is that he didn't make a mistake. He didn't let
Leites dictate whether the fight was going to stand up or go to the ground,
and he didn't lose his composure and over pursue Leites at the risk of
getting caught.
Silva completely outclassed Leites and proved that Thales Leites is not
championship material. If Silva would have been aggressive just to put on a
show and got caught, it wouldn't prove that Leites is better because anyone
can get caught at any time. Everyone should be glad Silva won. It's better
to have a dominant champion who's fights are boring because he outclasses
his opponents than witnessing the crowning of a fluke champion.
Snow Devil
23 Apr 2009, 18:44
MMA has to be taken seriously as a real sport if it's going to get the kind
of mainstream acceptance Dana White and most MMA promoters crave. It can't
do that if fighters are pushed to kill themselves for the sake of a few
finicky PPV customers who want bloodsport. Keller's right: there are going
to be clunkers and in the real world you never get what you pay for 100 %
of the time.
It happens in movies and music, too: Think about paying top dollar to see
your favorite band and then when the concert begins you see they are just
going through the motions and you aren't going to see the performance you
wanted. I'll bet that's happened to everybody who regularly goes to
concerts, but if you're a real music fan, you accept it will happen. If
you're a fan of movies, you'll accept that you'll sometimes pay to see a
bad movie. MMA should be no different.
I really don't think fans who demand bloodsport every time are MMA fans. A
lot of criticism directed at MMA has to do with the fans who want human
cockfighting instead of athletic competition. MMA has made great strides
to be accepted as a real sport and it can afford to lose those fans who
want human cockfighting. Look at the NFL: It's not Bronco Nagurski
football anymore, but that kind of football was never "America's sport."
It took the exorcism of the bloodsport element of football to make it huge:
players may still take steroids but at least the quarterback can see his
receivers, has time to throw to them, and isn't getting killed every play.
Obviously, that's the kind of football Americans want to see. How many
otherwise-interested MMA customers are still turned off by the human
cockfighting image and the fact that Dana White and the fans can't accept
that occasionally a fight will be a clunker and not a bloody KO?
John K
23 Apr 2009, 19:23
A fight doesn't have to be "bloodsport" to be an exciting, compelling
contest.
Good Job Keller
23 Apr 2009, 21:33
Great article Keller,
This was very well written, the best article ever written on this site. You
really should do more of the writing here rather then let the amateurs you
have take over. But I digress.
You nailed it on the head. So many of the fans now are not students of the
game. They just want to see guys beating each other up.
I will go one step further than you though, I don't think Silva was holding
on the ball and letting the clock run out. I think Silva was still active,
his style is just not to take a shot to give a shot. He wants to win and
not injure himself and there is nothing wrong with that.
If someone wants to fight like Forrest Griffin and get beat him that's OK
too, but don't criticize Silva. Just because he is a fighter does not mean
he has to get hurt. If you are in War you don't have to just shot, the
point in war is to beat your opponent with as little damage to yourself as
possible. That's the same thing here. Too many people are just interested
in seeing guys kill each other. Go watch youtube for that.
How many people will be back on the bandwagon when Silva fights an
aggressive striker and knocks him out in 30 seconds?
How many people are going to complain in May when two counter punches,
Machida and Evans fight. Get ready for another tactical 5 rounds.
Michael KopStick
24 Apr 2009, 05:58
The way readers respond here sort of insults PWTorch.com's Readers
Response. Wow, who would have thought, no mom jokes or hate comments in
such a widely commented-on article. This site puts pro wrestling fans to
shame.
Wes Drake
24 Apr 2009, 12:39
I can understand the criticism for Anderson and I can see how he played the
smart game. What it comes down to though is that Thales Leites did not do
enough, he backed down, he bored the fans not necessarily Anderson. I do
think that Anderson could and should have submitted him to end the fight
better and sooner, that is hardly pushing things in a dangerous direction.
Excitement from a fan perspective isn't necessarily a blood bath or a slug
fest, its just something, action. That match was one guy falling over and
the other dancing around and not doing an awful lot for 25 mins.
They REALLY need to think about who these so called contenders are before
making the match ups. Thales will regret blowing that title shot but he
should never have been put in that spot to begin with.
Tom Violence
27 Apr 2009, 10:20
Snow Devil writes:
"Think about paying top dollar to see your favorite band and then when the
concert begins you see they are just going through the motions and you
aren't going to see the performance you wanted. I'll bet that's happened to
everybody who regularly goes to concerts, but if you're a real music fan,
you accept it will happen."
Bullshit.
First of all, what thefuck is a "real" music fan, anyway? (Somebody who
likes "both types of music - country *and* western"??)
Secondly, if I pay "top dollar" to see a music act perform, and that act
sucks balls and gives no effort, then the chances I'll pay to see that act
again are the same as me eating the performers' feces and licking my lips
and calling it chocolate ice-cream.
Which is to say, I won't pay to see that act again, 'cos I feel
ripped-off.
John K hits the nail on the head:
"If I'm a football fan, I'm not charged $60 to watch the Super Bowl. I'm
not expected to fork over $40 a game to watch the World Series. ... When
you charge a large amount of money to view the event, other factors such as
entertainment value, come into play."
There's a reason that pro wrestling materialised in the first place, when
"real" wrestlers realized that chin-locks and missionary positions bored
the fans to sleep and were bad for business.
BwanaBob
28 Apr 2009, 08:47
Good article, Wade. Really good article. I wish you'd put this much time
and skill into your recent articles about pro wrestling. It's frustrating
to see how well you can do your job when you're motivated to it.
ben
05 Jun 2009, 21:13
I can't agree more with this article. MMA is a sport and the UFC (note that
it isn't the UFE) is about competition. We watch competitions because they
are entertaining but this doesn't cease to make them competitions. A true
fan of the SPORT should be disappointed when grapplers decide to stand and
fight to please fans, or when an undeserving fighter gets a title shot
because he is more marketable. If you want to see unrealistic non-stop
dramatic action the UFC ( and sports in general) is not for you. Just as
basketball has the Globetrotters, competitive fighting has the WWE, and if
you're interested in pure, unrealistic entertainment you can find it there.
