Another Take on Marcus Davis' Proposition for Chris Lytle
by Kid Nate on Nov 4, 2008 3:17 PM EST
Email
Print
From the comments on our Quote of the Day thread and Fightlnker's panties-in-a-wad take, I'd have to say that people are totally being punked by Marcus Davis.
Here's what Davis said:
'The first guy that starts grappling is a pussy, so let's not do that. Let's just stand up and just beat the hell out of each other. If we get in a clinching scenario, and somebody wants to throw somebody or whatever, go ahead and do it. But let's not try to finish it on the ground. Let's stand up, and let's bang it out.'
Here's the deal. MMA is a sport. Athletes play it to win.
Pre-fight statements should never be taken at face value. They're designed to manipulate the opponent.
Davis is about to face a guy who has an edge on him in grappling. Lytle is a BJJ blackbelt, Davis isn't.
Lytle is also someone who's got a track record of being willing to be baited into stand-up fights when he has a clear advantage on the ground.
If Davis' gambit is successful more power to him.
To say he's anti-grappling or something is pretty silly since he's shown he's more than happy to use submissions (especially against good strikers like Forrest Petz and Paul Taylor).
Moral of the story: a fighter's pre-fight comments are part of the fight strategy. Don't fall for the kayfabe.
62 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I agree that this is probably just a little gamesmanship being employed by Davis. What aggravates me is that I think Lytle will go for it. Maybe it will be to prove he can beat Davis on the feet. Maybe, it will be to try and earn ‘Fight of the Night.’ I’m guessing a little of both. I’d like to see fighters do what gives them the highest probability of victory. Maybe this statement is part of Davis’ plan to victory.
With that said, the statement sort of minimizes the “mixed” portion of “mixed martial arts.” I really don’t like that, but that’s just me. Hell, Jorge Gurgel doesn’t need another reason to not take a fight to the ground.
UFC fighters have agreed to stand up and fight to give the audience all the time.
People are just noticing it now because of all the crap everyone gave EliteXC.
How does the stigma still exist..
..that Lytle is being suckered? He just did this. He’s a grown man of normal intelligence and it’s not the first time this has occured with him. This whole thing is a total non-story and I’ve ironically spent an assload of time trying to affirm that.
yup and he turned what should’ve been an easy one round win into a three round decision. Davis is betting he’ll do that again.
yeah i’m not saying Lytle’s weak standing, I’m saying he’s way better than Davis on the ground.
Lytle has done pretty well as a pro-boxer himself.
Yeah, I am agreeing with you, but I did it in a mildly retarded way. Lytle stood with Alves and I guess caught him off guard and took it to him on the feet. He was, IMO, beating Alves. He is much better at ditching his ground game and standing then Gurgel. He does it and wins. Maybe if he got behind he would take it down.
I'm a bit surprised
Because you yourself, in the previous thread, made mention of how this isn’t about getting the easy win- it’s about the FOTN bonus. That doesn’t make Lytle stupid, it means he wants 65k on top of his purse. Thus, decision vs. round one RNC. Rollin the dice..
Two guys who like the stand up more than the ground game choose to stand up? What’s the big deal? It’s not like either of them have a better chance of winning if the fight is taken to the ground. Two equally-matched ground fighters neutralize each other. Might as well settle it standing up.
A black belt does not automatically makes that person better fighter. Didn’t we see a purple belt submit a black belt already? Davis won more than half of his fights through submission himself. I think they’re evenly matched on the ground.
It doesn’t, but it is limiting his skill set to favor the other persons.
Wasn’t that the whole point of Kimbo vs Seth.
No, the whole point was a promoter deciding to make sure their star had a better chance. Do you really still not get it?
People were arguing different points. I was not referring to what the promoter was doing.
I was referring to limiting someones skillset which favors the other fighter, which many people were arguing as being unethical to MMA.
The promoter doesn’t FORCE the fighter, they give them an incentive.
Just like FOTN is an incentive.
FOTN is available as an optional incentive, in addition to others
Not as an exclusive “do this not that” incentive.
Stand up incentive was optional as well.
The fighter still had the choice to keep it standing or take it to the ground.
No
If I told you I’ll give you five thousand dollars to mow your lawn with the manual lawnmower when you’re going to have an easier time with the motored lawnmower, I’m effecting your disposition.
But I still have a choice and no one is holding a gun at me.
winning may be more important than an extra 10K to me.
A fix is a predetermined outcome.
An incentive is influencing a fighter to fight a certain way, but they still have a choice as to how they want to fight.
A gun?
That’s a bit far. You’re telling me that you can’t be swayed short of a gun to your head? Alright man, have a good one..
No, my point is that you still have a choice.
Just like two athletes choosing to stand up and provide a war to try to make extra money and give fans what they want.
In doing that they make the choice to fo after the FOTN money, the KO money, and limit their skill set to only focus on the standup.
We're still talking about the Kimbo situation, right?
If they did what was alleged, it was a conflict of interest and totally unethical. Beginning, middle and end of story.
If the fight of the night and knockout bonuses were both worth significantly more than I was being paid to win the fight then I would want to get into a stand-up battle as well.
Difference being the recipe to get fight of the night is much easier (just bang it out on your feet for 3 rounds) and that’s been proven time and again. Much harder to catch a submission and then hope it stands up to submission of the night. Thus, they go after the easy (relatively speaking) Fight of the Night bonuses.
The FotN bonus presumably going to a standupfight is the crux of my problem with this situation.
But I’ve said that probably…six times since the first Lytle comments at his last fight.
So I think I’m done with this.
Yeah, I think when a guy has an advantage on the ground but is happy to stand, it may be an unintended consequence of said bonus. Not always, but there’s an incentive to stand based on the fact that most FoTN bonuses are given to exciting standup fights. My opinion is that this bonus should be re-evaluated. It’s certainly not equivalent to the alleged KO bonus given to Petruzelli, but I believe it favors one discipline of fighting over another.
by Cannon Jacques on Nov 4, 2008 4:09 PM EST up reply actions
How do you suggest the KO bonus be changed? Isn’t it true that most MMA fans (at least the ones going to live events) prefer the stand up? Couldn’t that possibly be a motivation for fighters as well?
I think the FoTN bonus needs to be looked at, not KO. You’re probably right about fans preferring standup and that encourages fighters to stand. I’ve really got no problem with that. I’d just rather see fighters go for the win first, put on a good show second.
by Cannon Jacques on Nov 4, 2008 4:55 PM EST up reply actions
Then you will get conservative fighters, which is never good for the fans.
It is a tough call in terms of ethics and how much do you want a promoter to affect the gameplan and skill set of fighters.
It's like an MVP award doesn't always go to the best player
It’s not really “fight of the night” as much as it is “fan favorite” (based on applause/involvement).
MVP should be given toe the most valuable player in a given league, not the most exciting. I’m just not comfortable with a promotion facilitating a particular style of fighting.
by Cannon Jacques on Nov 4, 2008 4:57 PM EST up reply actions
Fighting should be about strategy. Chris Lytle planning to bang it out for a bonus win or lose is not strategic at all, except in regards to maximizing his paycheck.
Isn’t that up to him to decide? That’s the trouble I have. You can think he’s making a mistake, but why are people outraged? To me, we don’t have that right.
Exactly. And the bonus is rather arbitrary. There is no guarantee that they will get FOTN. It’s not a guarantee.
The Seth/Kimbo situation, now that’s a guarantee. Keep it standing and you get the bonus. There’s the ethical dilemma.
I don’t see the bonus as arbitrary. It’s a definite incentive to stand and trade if you consider that FoTN’s are usually standup battles. There’s plenty of incentive to be aggressive without the bonus when you consider that Dana would be less likely to cut a guy that puts on a good fight. The guy would probably even get a better base contract – all other things being equal.
I’d rather just give all the fighters more money for a finish. If a dude wants to stand, because he likes to bang. I’m fine with that. I just feel like this is the time to look at the FoTN bonus to see if it’s performing the intended purpose, and that this purpose outweighs the unintended consequences of the bonus.
by Cannon Jacques on Nov 4, 2008 7:12 PM EST up reply actions
Forget about fight of the night, and go for the win. That’s what I’d rather see, anyway.
by Cannon Jacques on Nov 4, 2008 8:30 PM EST up reply actions
Its all about Fight of the Night
I think Lytle stated before that last fight that he was going to keep it standing because he wanted to contend for the Fight of the Night bonus, guys got kids to feed.
I wouldn’t be suprised to see that Davis is interested in the same thing, especially because it would keep the fight where he has the advantage.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
MMA Rankings
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
