A Career Beyond Fraternity Antics on "The Ultimate Fighter"
by Luke Thomas on Mar 31, 2009 11:49 AM EDT
in MMA News
Email
PrintTo have one, you actually have to - GASP - win:
But if you look long-term, for UFC and Spike, the most successful TUF characters, like Forrest Griffin, Rashad Evans and Michael Bisping, were not successful long-term because of anything memorable on the show, but because of how successful they were as fighters once the show was over.
Even Chris Leben and Josh Koscheck in season one, probably the closest equivalents to Browning, got noticed for bad reasons at first. But their fighting since leaving that has caused their careers to sink or swim.
Browning’s notoriety may keep him in the company even with a loss, which may not be the case with a more quiet member of the cast, but long-term, if he can’t win more than he loses, he won’t have a long UFC career.
26 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
It would be nice to have a show that focused on the fighters and the fights but I’m pretty sure it’s been proven via ratings that shows more focused on that don’t do as well as those with the goofy antics. (for the same reason why shit like “big brother” are still on and decent drama and other sitcoms fail), people love shit type TV.
I don’t care really, as long as I get at least a few good fights
I’m not sure what the point of this is.
That they should focus more on training? That won’t magically make fighters better either. What Spike and the UFC focuses on has about zero impact on what fighters do well after the show—you can’t use cameras to give a man talent and dedication.
For the fighters, the focus on antics allows fighters to act memorably. While that doesn’t help their UFC careers significantly, it DOES improve their earnings power overall: “UFC Veteran Junie Browning” will make more money out of the UFC than “UFC Veteran Matt Arroyo.”
"UFC Veteran Junie Browning" will make more money out of the UFC than "UFC Veteran Matt Arroyo."
That’s exactly right. I can understand why a lot of people don’t like the douchebag antics but I can also understand why a lot of fighters go down that path. If they don’t make it in the UFC their antics will ensure their name has a lot more value than someone who behaved a lot more intelligently.
Frustrating
Why does “making money” justify acting like a despicable person. Is it ok for everyone to compromise their values to make a buck? Is it appropriate to go morally bankrupt for the sake of cash and noteriety?
"Stop smiling you are about to be punched in the face !"
Values don’t put food on your child’s plate. Unless they are money-making values, which most values are meant to be anyway.
by Michaelthebox on Mar 31, 2009 2:35 PM EDT up reply actions
Other than values for maximizing the chance of successful children. Can’t think of any values which don’t relate to either money or children, directly or indirectly.
by Michaelthebox on Mar 31, 2009 2:41 PM EDT up reply actions
Really? Values are just about money or children? Even values that extend from ideals, or from religions, etc.?
"I'm AJB and I endorse this nut-puncher."
Lets take a look at a religious value:
“Be good to your fellow man”: causes you to act in beneficial ways, which increases your value to those around you, which increases network connections, which increases both money-making and mate-attracting capabilities, which improves potential for quality children.
Or an ideal:
“Right for the pursuit of happiness”: is attractive to individuals because it gives them ideological freedom to pursue their best ways to improve themselves and their station in life, which increases moneymaking status and mate-attracting capabilities, both for an individual and for the individual’s children. Furthermore, because of the ideal’s attractive qualities, the person espousing that ideal will gain support from other like-minded individuals, increasing network status which improves money-making and mate-attracting qualities.
You can run the same analysis on pretty much any value. Lots of values that have died over the years died because they ceased to provide money-making or mate-attracting qualities.
by Michaelthebox on Mar 31, 2009 3:03 PM EDT up reply actions
That’s a really hyper-materialist view of these things, and in my experience, it just doesn’t hold true. It’s hard to figure out how the Zapatista autonomous communities, for example, fit into that model. Sure, their struggles are in some sense motivated by a desire for their children and families to live free, but it’s also based on cultural imperatives that demand a differential relationship to the land and between people than is allowed for in the political make-up of the Mexican state. They were poor before they started fighting, they’re still poor now, they’d likely be poor even if they had won. But to them, not living in a certain way means that they cease to be the people that they were born as, or that they fail in their responsibilities to the wider world. That doesn’t sound like a particular materialistic motivation. And I know it’s possible to twist it around and connect that back to money and children, but I’ve spoken to several of them, and they just don’t see it that way. Nor are they the only ones; they’re just an example. I think the connections you make only work in the limited context of contemporary logic of social organization and rule, but lots of people don’t follow those rules.
"I'm AJB and I endorse this nut-puncher."
by AJB on Mar 31, 2009 4:12 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
but I’ve spoken to several of them, and they just don’t see it that way.
Most values aren’t seen that way, because people don’t generally think of them that way. Individuals are fairly poor at judging the basis and results of their own behavior, and in fact recognizing and acknowledging that basis may be self-defeating. Would you follow a charismatic leader who announces that everything he does is because he wants money and kids?
When I speak of values, I should clarify and say I’m speaking of successful, long-held values. Values that don’t ultimately benefit the ability to have and raise children inevitably die out. Furthermore, some values benefit the society and its children as a whole, rather than individuals.
by Michaelthebox on Mar 31, 2009 4:39 PM EDT up reply actions
Then you’re talking about people valuing sustainability and security, with money and children being two things that are dependent upon and/or promote those values in this context. In a different context, totally different things might represent/promote sustainability and security.
"I'm AJB and I endorse this nut-puncher."
In a different context, totally different things might represent/promote sustainability and security.
Which usually results in different values taking over.
I agree entirely; I suppose my major point is that there’s a lot more of those contexts around than people often think. There are lots of people out there that we see, interact with, even people who are family and friends, who simply exist in a completely different socio-cultural context much of the time and their values are changed accordingly. I don’t disagree with you in the main at all; it was the “can’t think of any… at all” that got me.
"I'm AJB and I endorse this nut-puncher."
I didn’t say at all. :)
Anyway, I still believe that directly or indirectly, all successful long-range values have to do with children, directly or indirectly, but as you say, the contexts affecting values change very much depending on culture and socioeconomic conditions.
by Michaelthebox on Mar 31, 2009 5:48 PM EDT up reply actions
I wonder what that implies for people like me who don’t like children (at all… )?
"I'm AJB and I endorse this nut-puncher."
Do you not like all children, or just other people’s children?
Will not liking children prevent you from having children?
If the latter is the case, your value of don’t like children→don’t have children won’t be passed down, and you won’t have children to spread it to. Eventually, given enough generations, that value will die out completely. It may take a long while, but it’ll die, unless we enter into some sort of hive state with nothing but test-tube children growing up in in collective educational centers or something silly like that.
That said, I tend to believe that value is the core result of some other values prevalent in modern industrial culture, which tends to turn children into wretched little beasts. If those values die out, which they should, your value may change as well.
by Michaelthebox on Mar 31, 2009 5:58 PM EDT up reply actions
How will me not having children cause my lack of valuing children to die out? I sure as heck didn’t inherit it from my parents. I got it from having dozens of ill-behaved, poorly parented younger cousins around… And that wasn’t anything to do with modern industrial culture; you just have to know my relatives (actually, no you don’t – trust me).
"I'm AJB and I endorse this nut-puncher."
To a large degree poor parenting is tied to modern culture, a lot of which has to do with industrialization. A lot of the bullshit kids can get away with nowadays would have been whipped right out of them 300 years ago.
Anyway, while you didn’t get a lack of valuing children from your parents (or maybe you did, but they had you anyway) but you did get an ability to be influenced by bad children into not wanting children. A fair number of generations of that, assuming children remain unpleasant pustules on the face of society, and humankind will have selected so that all people inherit an ability to completely ignore the wretchedness of such children and love them anyway. I don’t really expect that to happen, we’re still in the process of adapting to child-raising under modern conditions and I expect the values to change so that parents will generally do a better job raising their children.
by Michaelthebox on Mar 31, 2009 6:15 PM EDT up reply actions
People also used to start working full time much earlier in life.
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 Mar 31, 2009 6:21 PM EDT up reply actions
Hell, before the industrial revolution, most kids worked as a general rule. That made them much more useful and much better behaved.
by Michaelthebox on Mar 31, 2009 6:31 PM EDT up reply actions
Okay, I see that and I’ve come across that argument before. ANd I don’t disagree with it in the broad strokes. I just think that it doesn’t give enough credit to the memes that can arise and spread within a given community/society at almost any point. It’s the complexity theory thing: humans are constantly changing, both individually and collectively, and linear tracing of sociological elements sort of discounts this dynamism.
"I'm AJB and I endorse this nut-puncher."
I agree with you plenty about the variability of memes, most of which tend to be short-run rather than long-run values.
by Michaelthebox on Mar 31, 2009 6:42 PM EDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bloody Elbow
Related FanShots on Bloody Elbow
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.
