Upsets: Good or Bad for the Sport?
- 04-23-2007, 02:05 AM
Upsets: Good or Bad for the Sport?
In light of recent shocking upsets, I thought a discussion on whether or not they are good for the sport is prudent.
(on a side note, the euphemism 'upset' arose from a 1920's horse race, in which a heavily favoured horse was defeated by a horse named...anybody?...Upset)
I am debating, and will weigh in after some responses (I know everybody will be patiently awaiting my insightful and analytical reply).
- 04-23-2007, 02:25 AM
**** happens. Seeing you're favorite fighters get taken down by a nobody blows; it turns you off from the whole MMA thing for a bit. Have to realize though, the fighter is still a good fighter and with out a doubt will recoup and murder somebody
04-23-2007, 03:17 AM
Sign of the times. The quantity of quality fighters have increased tremendously lately, perceived upsets are mostly the product of the increasingly difficult task to keep up with all these faces and their abilities to properly gauge matchups.
If one starts having emotional favorites, dancing the "Savage Barnacle", accept that you will be troubled fairly often. It's virtually impossible not to, that's the price we fans pay, just like Football, just don't bet money that way.
To more directly answer the stated question - Is it good or bad for the sport? I would say good, makes it more interesting, forces fans to do better analysis if they want to see the sport in it's true light.
04-23-2007, 08:41 AM
Taking the predictability out of the sport is nothing but fabulous. Of course I'd rather see GSP or Mirko kick azz but in the end it's the fight game and everyone has those days.
04-23-2007, 09:57 AM
I think the wave of upsets is good and bad. It is good b/c it shows that anyone has a chance to win especially new fighters who have been training specifically for mma. It also makes it good for the viewer b/c this means many more competitive fights. However, I think it will be bad for the sport if there are upsets every time a title fight occurs. For the title to hold more significance, the champion needs to be able to defend it.
04-23-2007, 11:34 AM
That, however, raises another question in and of itself. Is the growing base of TUF fans good for the sport?
04-23-2007, 12:26 PM
AS for the original question, a good amount of unpredictability is a good thing because it generates excitement. Too much unpredictability and the stable of top fighters that people care about changes too rapidly for people to pick out favorites and casts doubt on who the real champ and top fighters are.
04-23-2007, 03:00 PM
The wave of upsets is due to the fact that unlike boxing, where it can tip the balance of moderately well matched fights, in MMA your gameplan and fight strategy make a HUGE difference. I really don't think that in the case of these upsets, the favorite was doing his research and really tailoring his fighting style to that of his adversary. This is part of what sets Fedor apart. Champs that keep training the same way they always have for a fight will get upset by underdogs that train to fight against their opponent.
04-23-2007, 03:21 PM
I think you're right, Ex. The Wand/CC attitude of I'll go slug it out and out-badass you will lead to losses here and there. Couture's the classic seemingly overmatched guy who out-thinks his oppenets and wins when he shouldn't.
04-23-2007, 03:55 PM
some of my friends who are involved in tha MMA circuit think too much money is coming in from these fights. with its increased popularity, more people are attending and watching the events. as a result, im sure many more people are gambling on these fights. this can result in a buyout for the fighter to throw a fight.
lots of people speculated that tito ortiz threw his fight with randy couture. and with mark serra as a 7:1 underdog, maybe somebody had a hefty wager and paid GSP an incentive to take a dive... i doubt this happened, but who knows for sure?
no matter how you look at it, MMA is still included in the entertainment industry. without keeping fans interested, this sport wouldnt exist in the media.
04-23-2007, 06:08 PM
I don't think GSP's loss was from a lack of tailored training; up to that fight he knew full well Serra's JuJitsu, so he technically did train to fight the Serra he thought he would battle. Just so happens Serra outclassed him on that day. I will say this, both CC and GSP looked WAY off from the onset of those fights.
04-23-2007, 06:18 PM
I love the unpredictability. It wouldn't be interesting otherwise. In the case of both Serra and Gonzaga, the upset arose from them having broadened their game without the opponent knowing it. We're all talking about the HK, but Gonzaga's GNP was absolutely brutal as well, and I think Mirko defended pretty well. The fact that MMA is so multi-dimensional leads to this unpredictability IMO. With boxing, there isn't too much you can throw at the guy. A sudden spinning back kick, while not entirely unorthodox, can quickly change the momentum of a fight. A striker can learn some ground and catch a wrestler in a sub. Anything is possible.
That being said, there do need to be dominant fighters as beacons for all others to strive for. Unpredictability is good; too much is not.
04-23-2007, 06:19 PM
It's good when you bet on the underdog and win a boatload of cash like I just did. moo ha ha.
Buddy gave me 5:1 on a $50 bet. He is sooooo pissed.
04-23-2007, 07:21 PM
04-24-2007, 12:02 AM
It's a good thing if you're betting on the fights.
But in the end it's ultimately a negative in a sport trying to gain credibility. If a perceived superior fighter is upset by the lesser talented fighter then it some make question the sport. Generally the more advanced and skilled opponent should win but with all these upsets it's a crapshoot and it invalidates the sport as it's seemingly based mostly on luck. People want certainties.
Also the casual fan will not follow a sport that is in constant change, it's too hard to follow. But if there's dominant figures it's easier to jump on the bandwagon and support the winner. It's not really a sport where there's a home team (IFL withholding) so people need another quality to choose their favorites. And everyone loves a winner so it's easy to get behind a dominant fighter. If one so
04-24-2007, 12:15 AM
This discourse has brought up the two different ways, IMO, to view if upsets are good for the sport . The actual activity insofar as two combatants fighting to determine a winner, and the 'sport' insofar as notoriety and appeal go. Upsets are extremely good for the former, in that they reveal a massive and diverse talent base that is only going to grow; on the latter portion, and as ersatz said, they are necessarily bad. Champions, contenders, and figures constantly toppling does not give any bandwagon opportunities.
04-24-2007, 04:54 PM
Talent is a word that complicates this discussion, b/c is Crocop more talented than Gonzaga? He is a vastly superior striker, despite what happened, but Gonzaga is a superior ground technician. I'd guess if you were to assign point values to all the different aspects of fighting, Gonzaga would probably come out on top. That being said, I'd take Mirko in a rematch in a heartbeat.
04-24-2007, 08:45 PM
04-24-2007, 11:03 PM
I enjoy and upset every once in a while. Everyone likes to pull for an underdog. But its gotten a little out of hand lately. I expect my favorite not fight down to a lower level, but to perform at a level that made him one of my favorites. It might just be level of competition is getting better or that there is so much more money involved there cracking under pressure. I know everyone gets caught once in a while and a flukes will happen. But if prime time fighters continue to lose to less caliber fighters I would think it would be bad for the sport.
04-25-2007, 12:42 AM
I think the fashion, not just the end results, of these upsets have disturbed me as well. It is one thing for someone to lose their belt in an epic 5 round battle, fighting tooth and nail to the end. Yet, you cannot claim such fights for GSP and CC. Does one shot, well placed, really dictate a deserving win? Obviously, it does, yet I would still contend that those fights go the opposite directions 9/10.
04-25-2007, 12:50 AM
Honestly, Serra looked much better standing, but the shot that set up the fall was a forearm to the back of the head. It was not intentional, but the fight probably should have been stopped for recovery there. GSP never regained his legs after that.
04-25-2007, 01:31 AM
04-25-2007, 01:51 AM
haha. I believe you, but the boards going to get slow for while with no real events until the end of May. I'm just getting started jasing it up.
04-25-2007, 01:51 AM
04-25-2007, 01:53 AM
I think that we should have a harassing thread. Where each week all the regulars take a turn getting shived up. I nominate Wordsworth for the first go-around.
04-25-2007, 02:02 AM
This is a loaded question.
Upsets in general cannot really be characterized as "good" or "bad" for a sport, anymore than winning and losing can be characterized as "good" or "bad" for a sport. It's simply a PART of sport itself- inherent to the very concept of competition.
But let's add more context to the issue.
Upsets can be bad in the sense of Diaz-Gomi, where in this case, a champion was upset but did not lose his championship status. This exposes serious flaws in the organization of the sport, calling into question the sport's legitimacy.
But of course, that's not the fault of the upset, it's the fault of the organization, but it can still reflect poorly on the sport itself.
On the other hand, huge upsets can attract more exposure to a sport, so in that sense, they could be considered good for a growing sport like MMA.
04-25-2007, 02:05 AM
04-25-2007, 02:07 AM
04-25-2007, 02:15 AM
04-25-2007, 03:43 AM
Similar Forum Threads
- By BigCasino in forum Training ForumReplies: 8Last Post: 10-25-2015, 03:30 PM
- By FatalFunnel in forum AnabolicsReplies: 10Last Post: 05-10-2015, 01:55 AM
- By jas123 in forum MMAReplies: 43Last Post: 06-23-2007, 01:37 PM