The UFC is Setting a Poor Example by Rewarding Marcus Davis and Chris Lytle at UFC 93
by ButterflyGuard on Jan 18, 2009 11:05 PM EST
Email
Print 
Never mind the UFC’s awful judgment in celebrating Mark Coleman and Shogun Rua’s epic slog through molasses; the real disappointment is that by also giving the nod to the Marcus Davis and Chris Lytle’s kickboxing match, the UFC continues its troubling trend of rewarding “Fight of the Night” honors to one-dimensional slugfests. Granted, the Coleman/Rua debacle often resembled two sleep-deprived men flailing in quicksand, but at least there were enough different styles on display (kickboxing, muay thai, ground and pound, wrestling, submission attempts) to make it a true MMA fight—which is more than can be said for the Davis/Lytle brawl.
The blame doesn’t lie with Lytle or Davis who are understandably motivated by the allure of big bonus money. If you don’t think that the need for money factors into a fighter’s decisions, go watch Marcus Davis fight back tears discussing his history of financial hardship in his post fight video interview on www.ufc.com. These men knew full well that the UFC has a history of throwing money at fights like this (most recently with Aaron Riley vs. Jorge Gurgel at UFC 91) and responded accordingly. Instead, the problem lies with the UFC, which as a Mixed Martial Arts organization has the responsibility to award bonus money to fighters that at least try to put on a true MMA bout, something which Davis and Lytle clearly did not.
The UFC has enough problems with uneducated fans cheering standup brawls and booing ground battles without actively encouraging fighters to turn in performances in which they have no intention of going to the ground even if they are getting the worst of the standup exchanges. The UFC must control the way their brand is perceived, and consistently rewarding one-dimensional striking battles with bonus purses is tantamount to telling uneducated fans that they are right in thinking that anything short of a sloppy Griffin/Bonnar-style kickboxing match is boring.
The FanPosts are solely the subjective opinions of Bloody Elbow readers and do not necessarily reflect the views of Bloody Elbow editors or staff.
64 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Couldn't agree with you more
Not sure if Dana know’s what he’s doing with regards this but lets hope he does.
Personally I thought the Aaron Riley – Jorge Gurgel fight was rubbish as was the Davis/Lytle fight.
These men knew full well that the UFC has a history of throwing money at fights like this (most recently with Aaron Riley vs. Jorge Gurgel at UFC 91) and responded accordingly.
Disagree entirely. If you put on an exciting fight, whether it’s on the ground, on the feet, or a combination of both, you have as good a chance as any of picking up an FotN bonus. There’s really no bias towards any ‘type’ of fight if you look at the fights that have received this bonus in the past.
To clarify, the only ‘trend’ of giving FotN bonuses to slugfests is fictional. Moreover, are the people complaining about this fictitious ‘trend’ going to be equally up in arms the next time a fight to receive this bonus is contested primarily on the ground (as technically, it would not be ‘true MMA’ (what a silly term) if there were not a significant portion of the fight on the feet, correct?).
If Xande Ribeiro and Roger Gracie
come over to the UFC and they decide they are gonna win FotN by having a grappling match with zero standup and then agree to do that – and first guy to stand up is a pussy. Yeah I would have a problem with that. Because Ribeiro would probably tear Roger up standing and he’d be throwing away part of his toolkit to make the fight exciting. Making it no different than a Japanese wrestling shoot. In other words a W3RK
Gimme 1 Round!
Thank you for your feedback, ilostmydog. While I agree that engaging in a standup war is not the only way to earn FotN, I feel that these types of fights have done particularly well at earning FotN honors in recent times. Furthermore, I think it’s fair to say that both fighters knew this and created their game plans accordingly. I wrote the above article because I feel that when the UFC rewards fights like Davis/Lytle with FotN, they are basically saying that these kinds of fights are representative of the best the UFC has to offer. I think that the UFC needs to be cautious of rewarding FotN to fights in which fighters intentionally reduce their “ways to win” in order to be “exciting”. Instead, they should award “FotN” to fights that feature fighters willing to win in any way possible. If they do this, than casual fans might take a look at a FotN that they wouldn’t normally have picked as the best fight (perhaps because it was less flashy than other fights on a card) and start thinking critically about what makes a great fight. This might open casual fans up to the concept that striking is not the best thing, but rather one of the best things that the UFC has to offer.
by ButterflyGuard on Jan 19, 2009 12:35 AM EST up reply actions
While I definitely do agree with your point that the UFC should be cautious about giving FotN bonuses to fighters that agree to strike/grapple beforehand, I don’t think it’s fair to say that slugfests have done particularly well at getting this award in recent times.
Look at the last couple of FotN bonuses:
93: Lytle/Davis – slugfest
92: Griffin/Evans – although primarily contested on the feet, it is difficult to call this one a brawl/slugfest
TUF 8: Browning/Kaplan – mostly grappling
Fight for the Troops: Miller/Wiman – very much an ‘MMA’ bout
91: Riley/Gurgel – slugfest
90: Sherk/Griffin – striking, albeit at a high enough level to avoid the label of ‘slugfest/brawl’
89: Lytle/Taylor – slugging by Lytle, quality striking by Taylor
UFN: Neer/Diaz – mostly groundwork
88: Pellegrino/Tavares – mostly groundwork
87: GSP/Fitch – a little bit of everything
86: Griffin/Rampage – everything
UFN: Franca/Edgar – mostly groundwork
85: Wiman/Tavares – 1st round mostly ground, striking round 2
by ilostmydog on Jan 19, 2009 1:14 AM EST up reply actions 5 recs
Point taken, ilostmydog. Clearly, it depends on what each individual feels that “particularly well” means, as well as what “recent times” or "slugfest" mean. Debates like this are a good example of the usefulness of defining terms.
On the list that you’ve provided, everything prior to UFC 89 would not qualify as a “slugfest” for me, either. However, when I speak of “recent”, I am not including those events. It is my opinion that there are 4 FotN fights in the last 7 cards that featured two fighters having little interest in going to the ground (the exceptions would be Miller/Wiman, Browning/Kaplan and Griffin/Evans). To me this shows that “slugfests” have done “particularly well” in “recent times”, but I can understand the viewpoints of people who feel differently. (For what it’s worth, I am anticipating that people will feel that Sherk/Griffin does not belong on my list of “slugfests”, but I include it because I feel that casual fans will not recognize the reasons that these fighters kept it standing, and focus only on the fact that it was a standup banger).
Semantics aside, the more pressing issue to me is the poor example the UFC sets ANY TIME it awards a FotN bonus to a fight like Davis/Lytle. What attracted me to MMA is the notion that the open-ended nature of combat possibilities means that the victorious athlete is frequently the one who would actually win in a “real” fight. I like the idea of flashy strikers having to learn other disciplines in order to stay competitive. I love it when a feared striker has other weapons to finish a fight (see Silva/Lutter). It is for these and other reasons that I find it disappointing when the UFC rewards fights like Davis/Lytle, which featured participants that seemingly had no intent in fighting under MMA rules.
by ButterflyGuard on Jan 19, 2009 2:16 AM EST up reply actions
Heres the funny part
When you compare this to Bob Sapp vs Kinniku Mantaro to this fight… Mantaro vs Bobb Sapp was a more legit match.
Gimme 1 Round!
dammit should have proof read
Screw it you know what I meant
That post brought to you by the Redundancy dept. of redundancy
Gimme 1 Round!
That would be funny
were it the least bit true. A, Japanese MMA matches are inherently illegitimate because the performers might be juicing and the promoter doesn’t even bother to test. B, the guy was wearing a fucking mask that cost him the fucking fight.
by Derek Suboticki on Jan 19, 2009 5:40 AM EST up reply actions
Well they didn't agree on a prearranged way to fight
and the fight was a true MMA bout – with a mask. Lytle vs Davis was about as close to a W3rked fight like in the old days that i’ve seen since Coleman vs Takada
Gimme 1 Round!
lol, writing off all MMA in Japan as illegitimate because they don’t have a regulatory body, that is some blue ribbin ignorance right there.
Pfft. The promotion could’ve tested. They didn’t.
by Derek Suboticki on Jan 20, 2009 1:09 AM EST up reply actions
There is no issue with planning the fight out ahead of time
Because there is no reason why Davis or Lytle could not have brought the fight to the ground if they wanted to. Saying the first one to go to the ground is a pussy only works on idiots, not mixed martial artists. Was royce gracie a pussy? Is Shinya Aoki? The ladder has very poor standup compared to many in the division yet will beat and most likely submit nearly every 155 pounder in the world.
Davis and Lytle both wanted to stand and bang because they were not only hoping to make the fight exciting, but first and foremost they thought it was the best way to win the fight. Both are very experienced strikers. It would be different if Paolo Filho and Demian Maia said they wanted to fight and they both wanted to duke it out on the feet. Those two wouldn’t do that because they are then giving up their best chance to win in exchange for excitement. And because that fight strategy would probably get both of them fired.
Lytle's best chance to win with Davis counterpunching
was to take him down and take advantage of his much more experienced Jiu Jitsu background. But he didn’t and continued to chase him around and get countered to get the 40K
Gimme 1 Round!
Lighten Up
These are two guys with boxing backgrounds and wanted to keep it standing to put on a good show. Big deal, its their choice. God forbid a fight doesnt go to the ground for the hardcore fans. And they definitely deserved fight of the night. It was a damn good fight.
Yeah, and they can fight however they want. In ANY of the martial arts. Boxing is a martial art. Theres no rule stating EVERY fight has to involve each of the martial arts. Just because they decided to stand up for this fight doesnt mean they’re throwing jits and wrestling out for their next fights. My god, this is insane. Its one freakin fight. Ur like the MMA Nazi. No ground fight, NO SOUP FOR U!!!
by Gogoplatapus on Jan 19, 2009 9:02 PM EST up reply actions
Somebody tell me how I should feel about this!
On one hand, I thought Lytle was foolish for not taking advantage of a clear superiority on the ground. I think a fighter should use whatever is necessary to sway the fight his way.
On the other, neither one of these guys are relevant to the title, so who cares. It was exciting and fun to watch.
Then again, i don’t like any agreement that would affect the outcome of the fight.
But, i don’t like guys going out there to specifically get the FOTN bonus. Win and keep winning and the money will come.
Yet, these guy aren’t that highly paid and need the money to keep going.
Perhaps Dana should just do away with the bonuses and pay each UC fighter a little bit more $$$???
If you're not submitting, you're just rolling around with another guy.
Yeah, I think this was a rare case of 2 guys that were on good terms with each other wanting to give the fans a good show because they both like to stand and bang. I don’t think they should have made it public with the no ground agreement though. That was where they made the mistake.
True.
You know another thing is, one way for a middle of the road type fighter, to make themselves relevant or even get title shot consideration, is through the fans. I would say a guy that is 6-3 against ok competition, but very much a fan favorite, would be just as much in line for a shot, as a guy who has a better record but is not popular.
If you're not submitting, you're just rolling around with another guy.
Quote from Marcus Davis
“[Lytle] and I never made some kind of agreement,” Davis said. "I said something. It was a joke. And people didn’t take it as a joke. They thought it was all serious.
"I had said, ‘First guy to take it to the ground and start grappling is a pussy.’ And I said that, and it blew up. Everybody ran with it. It was on all the freaking sites. It was on all the forums and such. People were cursing me out because I was trying to take it and not make it an MMA fight.
“It was a joke. Nobody got it. I’m an MMA fighter. He’s and MMA fighter. The fight could happen any place.”
And while Davis is open to competing in all aspects of the sport as he looks to build on his UFC 85 win over Paul Kelly, the 35-year-old admits he’d love to brawl for the duration of the bout.
“With that said, no, I don’t want to fight on the ground,” Davis said. “I want to punch Chris in the face. He wants to punch me in the face. We both want to have an exciting fight. We would to reenact what Bonnar and Griffin were able to do four years ago. We want to do that same thing. We want to make the fans happy and get what they pay for when they buy the pay-per-views and the tickets.”
by Gunslinger20 on Jan 19, 2009 1:29 PM EST up reply actions
This quote just proves that everyone needs to lighten up...
The whole situation was and is still being completely blown out of proportion.
by Gunslinger20 on Jan 19, 2009 1:30 PM EST up reply actions
Even the UFC announcers (Goldie) restated the quote and referenced it again when Davis took Lytle down, then let him back up (which Rogan then referenced it). They pretty much seemed to know it was a standup fight with no ground, which is what it was.
by MMASuPreMaCy on Jan 19, 2009 1:43 PM EST up reply actions
Ok...
Chris Lytle is a black belt in BJJ and has had quality submission victories. When you’re Marcus Davis and you know your opponent is stronger than you on the ground… are you going to take it there? No, you’re not.
If anyone should be questioned here, its Lytle. He had the obvious advantage on the ground and he didn’t use it. Hence why Lytle will never be more than a space filler on these cards, his presence carries no signifigance other than attempting to put on entertaining fights.
by Gunslinger20 on Jan 19, 2009 1:51 PM EST up reply actions
I agree with your assessment of Davis’s reasons for not going to the ground. Additionally, this is hardly the first time that Lytle decided to stand and trade when he had a significant wrestling and grappling advantage. The best example of this is his fight with Paul Taylor at UFC 89.
by Rundownloser on Jan 19, 2009 1:56 PM EST up reply actions
Keep in mind
Just like Davis, Lytle was a professional boxer before he got into MMA…
How can people really be faulting these guys? If they had spent the whole time on the ground, people would be calling it a boring fight…. yet if it was a Gracie, then it would be ok because thats what Gracie’s do.
These guys are brawlers and thats what they did.
by Gunslinger20 on Jan 19, 2009 2:03 PM EST up reply actions
People aren’t faulting these guys for standing the whole time. It’s the agreement they made publically that has people troubled. Do you not see that?
Obviously you can't see...
that it was just a joke and some people are looking “foolish” in trying to make this into some big conspiracy when its not.
These two are bangers and thats what they do.
by Gunslinger20 on Jan 19, 2009 2:20 PM EST up reply actions
Look, he may spin this as a “joke” but the 2 obviously had an agreement ahead of time. Is it wrong? That’s up to the fans.
Rogan and Goldie didn’t think it was a joke when they were announcing the fight.
by MMASuPreMaCy on Jan 19, 2009 4:28 PM EST up reply actions
I rarely listen to them...
Usually my friends and I are talking over them so I don’t really listen to them. If they brought it up, I wasn’t listening but even if I did…. who really gives a shit? Even if they did pre determine that they wanted to stand the entire time… I thank them for it because those two are boring as hell when they take things to the ground. In a fight that has no real signifigance like this one, this worked because I don’t have much expectations.
by Gunslinger20 on Jan 19, 2009 6:33 PM EST up reply actions
and if you saw the fight and think the “agreement” was a joke you are a fool. They obviously were not going to the ground when the opportunity prtesented itself. So, while Davis may be trying to save face in the above quote, it was pretty obvious to me and anyone that saw the fight they were def agreeing to stand and bang for 3.
You stick with what you are good at...
These guys are both better standing so they kept it there. Lytle should have used his ground advantage and he didn’t but that doesn’t negate the fact he is a better fighter standing than he is on the ground…. despite his ground skill advantage over Marcus Davis.
by Gunslinger20 on Jan 19, 2009 2:22 PM EST up reply actions
and another thing:
"With that said, no, I don’t want to fight on the ground," Davis said. "I want to punch Chris in the face. He wants to punch me in the face. We both want to have an exciting fight. We would to reenact what Bonnar and Griffin were able to do four years ago. We want to do that same thing. We want to make the fans happy and get what they pay for when they buy the pay-per-views and the tickets."
You can’t just try and replicate a fight that happened. Those types of fights are not duplicated, they just happen.
No...
they were STILL talking about it during the pre-fight interviews…it wasn’t a one time quote that was blown out of proportion.
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Jan 19, 2009 3:02 PM EST up reply actions
Did I say it was a one time quote?
That was one particular quote from Marcus Davis in what he thought about the situation…
The guys were just blowing smoke and trying to hype the fight. I honestly don’t see what the big deal is here… why is everyone crying conspiracy here?
In the grand scheme of things for the WW division in the UFC, do either of these two matter? No, they don’t. They wanted to put on a good show and in my opinion, they did. This was a fight to be taken at face value, it had no implications of anything other than these are two guys that wanted to fight each other and Joe Silva made it happen.
by Gunslinger20 on Jan 19, 2009 3:10 PM EST up reply actions
The big deal is that we don’t need guys making agreements to keep a match standing/on the ground etc. It takes something away from the match.
As a fan, I want to know that the fighters are doing everything within their skill levels and taking opportunities that present themselves as the fight progresses. When I find out that the 2 fighters have a pretty solid pact to keep a fighting in a certain direction in order to put themselves in the best position to win a FON bonus..it sort of takes the shine off the sport in a way. But that’s just me.
The way I saw it, Davis tried to sucker Lytle into fighting a style of fight that Davis had a better chance of winning. He succeeded and won the fight.
Bolts from the Blue // "Game over." - Jamal Williams
Bloody Elbow // "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." - H.L. Mencken
by Richard Wade on Jan 19, 2009 4:16 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I can see why you feel that way...
I just never took either one of them seriously, mainly because I didn’t care what happened with this fight either way. I was more interested in the Co Main Events and Denis Kang’s debut.
Davis and Lytle are just two faces on the roster, I don’t really care how each one fairs and I take everything said with a grain of salt. I seriously feel that Davis was joking, thats my opinion because some people will say anything to get a reaction out of people. Recreating “Standgate” was probably the only way they could get people to care about this fight.
by Gunslinger20 on Jan 19, 2009 6:39 PM EST up reply actions
"I don’t know whether anything like this has ever been done before. The thing that makes this fight different is that both of us, as athletes, really want to do it; we have got together and decided to go out and put everything on the line
“I know, and Chris is the same, that no matter whether I win or lose, if we go out there and bang at each other and put on a fight that people remember for a long time, then Dana White isn’t going to fire us from the UFC. If we went out and lay on each other for three rounds, that’s why you get fired.”
http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2008/12/8/684892/marcus-davis-doesn-t-care
The problem is, if you repeatedly say you are going to do something, and then you do it, you can’t later claim you didn’t mean it.
Yeah, it sounds like they thought they were giving fans what they wanted, then saw the backlash from the real fans who don’t want any kind of worked fights, and decided to play it of as a joke. I mean sure, the “first one to take to the ground is a pussy” line was meant to be light-hearted, but everything else that was said was about working the fight in a certain way.
Hopefully Marcus Davis (who did most, if not all of the talking) learned something here.
I can’t tell that it had any effect on the fight. Do you really think the fight would have been radically different if this “agreement” never occurred? The best chance Davis had of beating Lytle was via technically minded counter-punching and Lytle is notorious for not going to the ground, even when it would probably win him the fight. They fought how they would logically (or illogically in the case of Lytle) fight.
Now that I think about it, there’s a better case to be made that it would have had the opposite effect: if Marcus did fight like he was saying they had agreed to, then he would have slugged it out with Lytle, and he clearly didn’t do that.
by Rundownloser on Jan 19, 2009 7:39 PM EST up reply actions
I doubt that bet would have been any different without the “gentleman’s agreement”. Neither fought differently then they usually try to. Davis is a good boxer and Lytle, though being underrated on the ground, rarely looks to go there, even when it is his best chance of winning.
If the fight would have been the same without the agreement, then it doesn’t matter.
Sure, he shouldn’t have said it, but I don’t think that it really changed the outcome of the fight.
Crap
that was a response to Ibk’s post above:
and if you saw the fight and think the "agreement" was a joke you are a fool. They obviously were not going to the ground when the opportunity prtesented itself. So, while Davis may be trying to save face in the above quote, it was pretty obvious to me and anyone that saw the fight they were def agreeing to stand and bang for 3.
by Rundownloser on Jan 19, 2009 2:16 PM EST up reply actions
Exactly
Anyone “who knows” these two fighters…. they fought exactly how they always do. There is no conspiracy here.
by Gunslinger20 on Jan 19, 2009 2:19 PM EST up reply actions
He got his black belt from the guy on TUF8 who everyone thought was full of crap about his own black belt. Just an FYI. My guess is Lytle is pretty decent on the ground but he’s never shown anything approaching elite skills there in his career.
I wouldn’t say elite, but he’s hardly a black belt in no-jitsu. Lytle is really underrated on the ground and has legitimate skills there. I don’t think that it’s crazy to think that Davis didn’t want to give Lytle the chance, given that Lytle’s probably better on the ground.
by Rundownloser on Jan 19, 2009 7:31 PM EST up reply actions
With those victories coming..
when he was taken to the ground by his opponent. Marcus Davis doesn’t look to take fights to the ground, but he can handle his own if his opponent chooses to take it there.
Seriously man, just let it go.
by Gunslinger20 on Jan 19, 2009 2:24 PM EST up reply actions
Mousasi and Manhoef had a gentlemans agreement too
Mousasi shot on Manhoef within the first 30 seconds of the fight… Got stuffed and kept working till he got Manhoef down and got the win.
THATS AN MMA FIGHT
Manhoef was pissed but Mousasi did the right thing. Cared about winning instead of w3rking a fight
Gimme 1 Round!
Also, I think you’re saying they set a “bad precedent,” not a “poor example.”
Bolts from the Blue // "Game over." - Jamal Williams
Bloody Elbow // "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." - H.L. Mencken
Screw Marcus Davis
“I wanna put on a forrest-bonnar type of fight”
Does anyone remember Forrest or bonnar doing this?
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3370/3209735491_24190d3f87_o.gif
The correct response should have been
“the person who loses is a pussy”
On another page someone wrote about a reference to NFL. I think it was a great analogy. The equivalent of this situation was like if Hatton fought Pacquiao and said “the first one to use his right hand is a pussy” and then Pacquiao agreed. As a fan – I would not be impressed.
To go again(sorry!) it would like the Lakers playing the Celtics and Kobe tells Ray Allen that everyone can only shoot threes. And anyone who goes for a layup is a pussy. And the whole game they go back and forth shooting threes.
Great fights (like Griffin-Bonnar or Alvarez-Hansen) are great because the competitors are doing everything they can to win. The excitement comes naturally because both competitors are doing their absolute utmost to win. They’re putting everything they have into it. Griffin-Bonnar was all striking because at that point striking WAS all they had….
That wasn’t the case with Davis-Lytle. For this reason – I hate watching Jorge Gurgel fight and watching Andy Wang’s fight on the TUF was one of my most painful MMA experiences.
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.
