Fighternomics: The Strategies of Anderson Silva and Thales Leites
by Mike Fagan on Apr 22, 2009 12:28 PM EDT
in MMA News
Email
Print
Since the final horn, we've seen a long series of back-and-forth articles about the performances of Anderson Silva and Thales Leites in their bout at UFC 97. Silva, the Zuffa-heralded pound-for-pound king, has been chastised for his tentativeness to work towards a finish while others have blasted Leites for continually flopping to the floor when Silva applied pressure - even Chuck Liddell had something to say about it.
I've been sitting on a quality article I read about strategy between mismatched college football teams (though it applies to all sports) for some time now. The article proves poignant after the events on Saturday, and gives good reasons why Silva took a reserved approach while providing the logic behind the idea that Leites needed to be more aggressive to have any chance at victory.
Excerpts from Smart Football:
But is that true in college? Or in high school? Think about when Florida plays the Citadel. The Gators have a massive talent advantage compared with the Bulldogs. As a result, what is the only way they can lose? You guessed it: by blowing it. They can really only lose if they go out and throw lots of interceptions, gamble on defense and give up unnecessary big plays, or just stink it up.
A fan or some uninitiated coach might see this as a lack of effort, but another view might be that Florida used an unnecessarily risky gameplan that cost them a victory. And since we know that they would win almost every time, what did they gain by being more aggressive? Even if they gained in expected points, this is something like the difference between a forty-point and sixty-point victory, which ought to be irrelevant.
It's a well-worn belief that underdogs -- i.e. the kind of severely outmatched opponent that cannot win without some good luck -- must employ some risky strategies to succeed. This has long been believed but now we have a reason, though it also teaches us that there is a price to this bargain. The underdog absolutely must take the riskier strategy, whether by throwing more and more aggressively, by onside kicking, or doing flea-flickers and trick plays. They have to get lucky. In the process, however, they also increase the chance that they will get blown out, possibly quite badly. But isn't that worth the price of a shot at winning? Florida might pick off the pass and run it back for a touchdown; they might sack the quarterback and make him fumble; they might blow up the double-reverse pass. If so, then things look grim. But what if they didn't? And if the team didn't do those things, how can it beat them by being conservative? By waiting for Florida to make mistakes?
After two rounds, it became apparent to most watching that Leites needed some sort of extraordinary event to take place if he had any hopes of winning. His lone highlight, a takedown Leites landed in the second, hinged little on his ability to wrestle. Silva, for the most part, gets put on his back because he's unafraid to lose position following a strike, and that's essentially what happened on Saturday night.
With conventional technique having little success, Leites needed to attempt some sort of aggressive and unorthodox attack. Interestingly enough, we only have to look back to Silva's fight with Ryo Chonan in Pride for a perfect example of this. Silva, fighting on an injured ankle, looked to be plodding his way to a decision victory until Chonan submitted the Spider with a flying heel hook.
Leites essentially had this decision to make: fight conservatively with self-preservation in mind and win 0.1% of the time (roughly the amount of time Silva blows his knee or some other fight-ending injury) or throw the kitchen sink at Silva and get knocked out 97% of the time but coming out victorious that other 3%. Again, rough estimates, but the point should remain clear.
As for Silva, he touches on this issue with Tatame.
One way or another he fought well, came well prepared, but I would have a lot to risk. I’m not risking something that took a long time for me to win. I think the fans are talking, criticizing...Each one has their opinion, I have to respect their opinion...I try to fight and don’t get hurt and this is working over all these years.
It's been just over 2 years since Matt Serra beat Georges St. Pierre and I think it's safe to say that loss still sits in the back of the MMA consciousness. We also need to remember Anderson is 34 years old - older than Wanderlei Silva, older than the Nogueira brothers, older than Vitor Belfort. Even disregarding the self-imposed retirement talk, his window as a peak athlete shrinks by the minute. And it's only been very recently that he's been making big time, PPV-laden money.
For better or worse, Silva has plenty of incentive to maximize his win expectation even if that sacrifices his knockout or submission expectation. I can't really say I blame him for trying to protect his assets either.
84 comments
|
5 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Nice article.
I like that more reasonable attitudes are starting to gain the foreground in this situation.
Again, I think the problem here is two fold. Specifically in this fight Leites didn’t provide enough challenge to force Anderson to do more than he did. You can argue entertainment value all you want, but the Champ has to also consider retaining his title.
The other aspect of the problem is the UFC’s matchmaking in this and the Cote fight. Its going to be tough, because Anderson is soooo much better than the rest of the weight class (even outside the UFC), but they simply must put more aggressive fighters in their with them. People who are going to go for broke even when they are losing badly. Like the article you quoted mentioned, the conservative approach for the underdog has an astronomically low chance of success.
That was my basic take on the fight as well…hard to blame Silva for winning and protecting his body so that he can be here to do it again. By round 3, it was incumbent upon Leites to do something dramatic. If I had been coaching him, my high-risk strategy if the conventional leg-takedown approach didn’t work would have been to work more unorthodox takedowns from inside the plumb. Let Silva get the plumb and feel like Leites was going to attempt some dirty boxing and just diseengage a few times, then use some combination of Judo throws, karate or sumo sweeps (not that Machida would help him train against Silva), or something like that. Is he gonna take something of a beating? Probably…hopefully he could withstand it long enough to get good takedowns and a dominant position. The trick would be baiting silva into it a few times with no takedown attempt before going for the gold.
I’m picturing something like Maia’s throw (and eventual submission) of Sonnen.
High risk, low chance of reward, but higher chance of reward than getting kicked in the leg and flopping for 5 rounds.
He gets paid by being exciting.
Money wise its better to loved by the fans than have a winning record. If he keeps playing to prevent losing, money wise he’s a goner. If those are his fights from here on out, Dana will be trying to fit a title fight on the undercard.
A couple things.
1) He already signed the big money contract, so he really only loses out on potential PPV %‘s with these performances. And given his ability to draw, it’s not really going to kill him.
2) He’s not fighting in a way to “not lose.” He’s fighting in a way to maximize his ability to win while reducing the chance of injury, etc.
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
He didn’t just squeak by in that fight he won it handily, it really was never in doubt. That’s not fighting to not lose that is fighting to the point of insuring there is no way the other guy can win. Yes it would be great if he had taken it a step farther and finished it early but it was way beyond a guy just fighting to not lose. I can understand why fans would of been bored to death by his performance because as a fan that fight sucked ass but the fact that it was dull as snot shouldn’t take away from the fact that Silva was never even challenged to take it to the next level, he dominated the fight and won easily.
The PPV percentage is where the money is. That’s why Chuck is a multi-millionaire, not the purses he won. So killing your drawing power is very bad financially.
My issue is…why isn’t every heavy favorite coasting against easier opposition then? I just don’t like the idea that he should just coast to be safe. Isn’t that the same thing that people get shit on for with lay and pray?
And I still say he was absolutely fighting not to lose his quotes basically reflect that attitude.
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
http://CurseOfRonKarkovice.blogspot.com/
by Brent Brookhouse on Apr 22, 2009 1:07 PM EDT reply actions
How often are UFC title fights contested with such a huge talent disparity? The line ended up between -500 and -600 for this fight, but honestly the true line was probably nearer to -1000.
The last example I can think of is GSP/Serra II, but Georges came in as the challenger in that fight.
Guys on the undercard or prelims don’t have the luxury to sit back and coast to a win.
To a much lesser degree, Rampage did a similar thing against Jardine. He admitted post fight that his strategy was to come forward and rush Jardine, yet once the fight started he reverted back to a safer, more cautious counterstriking approach. Again, not completely similar because that bout had a lot more action (Jardine wasn’t flopping like a fish either), but I think the mindset may have been comparable.
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
So we're saying it is okay...
in main event fights but not undercard? If a guy wants to do this on an undercard…it’s bad. But if it is a title fight we’re cool with it? So if a guy is 100% a takedown, lay and pray guy..he should take shit unless he is in the main event. If someone fights like he did on an undercard to “be safe”…off with his head…if ANDERSON SILVA does it in a main event then it’s “smart strategy?”
I’m not denying that it was safe and he took no damage…which is good on him. I’m just saying, are we going to retain this going forward for all fighters? Or is it just a special case of title fights where a guy is fighting an unworthy challenger?
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
http://CurseOfRonKarkovice.blogspot.com/
by Brent Brookhouse on Apr 22, 2009 1:46 PM EDT up reply actions
I don’t think it’s ok but if we are going to think of this as a true sport then winning the fight is the most important thing. You can’t force Anderson Silva to fight the way fans want him to fight or dictate to him how he gameplans his fights or to start taking risk to finish fights when he doesn’t have to the only solution is to put him in there with guys who are actually going to push him to fight at a higher level and not allow him to get away with that crap.
That's fine...but I'm serious...
I never want to hear anyone who is defending Silva complain about a lay and pray win or any other boring fight…
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
http://CurseOfRonKarkovice.blogspot.com/
by Brent Brookhouse on Apr 22, 2009 1:55 PM EDT up reply actions
Oh I will complain about whatever strikes my fancy, like most fans I am a shallow self interested jerk but yes I do agree that this is very similar to what Sean Sherk is famous for doing to win his fights and it deserves fan ridicule just the same. Still it’s not the fan’s place(or the organization’s place) to tell guys how to fight or what risk they should or shouldn’t take you fix those issues with matchmaking not demanding they fight in a manner that fans want to see. There is a very definate line there that shouldn’t be crossed if this is to remain a legitimate sport.
As a fan, I would love to see Silva work more aggressively towards a finish. It’s more exciting. I just don’t think his performance was shameful or disrespecting to the sport, his opponent, the fans, Dana, etc.
But I don’t really complain too much about fights anyway.
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
I think...
it was shameful and slightly disrespectful to the fans. But he wasn’t disrespecting the “sport” at all.
People want to keep drawing the Roy Jones comparison, but Jones toyed with guys and yeah…sometimes took them deeper into fights than he should have…but when a guy started to fold Roy knocked them the fuck out. He took a VERY small group of guys to decision in the prime of his career and the very large majority of those guys were at the top of the sport at the time (or in the case of Hopkins were great fighters in a very similar career stage).
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
http://CurseOfRonKarkovice.blogspot.com/
by Brent Brookhouse on Apr 22, 2009 2:17 PM EDT up reply actions
Jones was still the ultimate showman & it seems that Silva's
interest in him has led him to mimickry. Who was the guy that Jones kept punching in the shoulder until the guy quit?
Arguing on the internet is like being in the special olympics, even when you win you are still retarded.
You never hear me with such useless concerns to begin with.
by Derek Suboticki on Apr 22, 2009 3:15 PM EDT up reply actions
Fans can complain about whatever they want
They’re fans. And they have the prerogative to because they pay (in most cases) to watch the sport.
From a rational point of view it’s all about incentives. Which go something along the lines of this:
- UFC debutant – WIN. As long as you win your first fight you can come back for a second. If you take a risky strategy (i.e. try to win a brawl) and end up getting KTFOed you might get cut immediately. Therefore in this situation ‘winning’ is more important than ‘being exciting’.
- UFC prelim fighter – WIN with style – once you’ve established yourself with the UFC your next goal is to move onto the main card. For most this comes with getting some damn good looking fights under your belt. Once you’ve had 2 or 3 wins in the Octagon 1 loss is unlikely to get you cut so your main objective should be winning in a good fashion.
- UFC main carder – WIN with style – you’ve become a main carder but you’re not yet a contender. You need to keep winning impressively to become a contender. If you keep winning but you’re not impressive, the brass is unlikely to push you up for a title fight. See Okami, Yushin.
- UFC main carder but not contender – BE EXCITING – See Davis, Marcus or . You want to stay in the UFC but you’ll never make it to the main event/title fight. You either have to keep winning, or you have to keep being exciting. Preferably both (but if you did you’d eventually be a title contender). Davis is in the odd realm where he can’t beat anyone in the top 5 at WW but he’s solid enough to keep winning over the rest of the field. His main thing is he’s exiciting. See also Lytle, Chris.
- UFC No 1 Contenders Match – WIN – If you’re put in a clear No.1 contenders match, you have to win. It’s as simple as that. If you lose in exciting fashion you aren’t going to get a title shot. Sometimes the No.1 contender is only one sided ala Bisping/Henderson. I’m quite sure that if Bisping wins he’ll get a shot at the title. If Henderson wins, the next guy in line might be Marquadt. For Bisping, the name of the game in this fight is win. Even if he wins in boring fashion his previous exciting fights are probably going to carry him to the title shot.
- UFC Title fight – WIN – You’re in the title fight. You have to win. It’s as simple as that. Beautiful or ugly, whether you’re the champion or contender, you have to win. That’s why Anderson Silva fought the way he did, because it gave him the highest % chance of winning. Thales Leites….didn’t bring the right game plan and his thought process was a bit off.
Absolutely,
Anderson needs an opponent to push him. This happens all of the time in sports. A great team or athlete faces way lesser competition and it ends up being a shitfest. But ultimately, a win is a win.
Arguing on the internet is like being in the special olympics, even when you win you are still retarded.
If the UFC wants Silva to have competitive and exciting fights then they need to book him against competitive opponents. It seriously is just that simple don’t book the guy against fighters that he can cruise past without sweating and then gripe that he didn’t break a sweat beating them. You didn’t see this kind of performance against Dan Henderson, Nate Marquardt or Rich Franklin because those guys aren’t going to let him get away with that stuff.
That’s not really what I’m saying. Personally, I’m OK with a guy on the undercard doing it, but the economics of his situation don’t make it a profitable endeavor. Silva is at the top. He makes huge money. He headlines pay-per-views. There’s very little he can do to increase his fighting income.
A guy like say, Cain Velasquez, can’t just go out there and play around with Denis Stojnic for three rounds. Not that he’s really in any danger of getting cut (because he’s one of the few heavyweight assets Zuffa has), but when it comes around to negotiating a new contract, Dana’s not going to be as generous with a guy who’s content with taking a lackluster three round decision. Plus, Anderson’s alluded to this being his last fights. He literally has zero concern for any future contract negotiations.
There’s a huge premium for guys who fight in an exciting manner. Just look at the handful of mediocre mid-carders with uninspired records that still have UFC jobs. The higher up the totem pole you climb, the less you have to impress fans and UFC brass.
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
Well we did go through a stretch of world champion Tim Sylvia lazily jabbing his way to decision after decision victories so this isn’t unheard of. Of course you also have to look at the fact that Anderson Silva is just so much better than the people he has been fighting lately that he can get away with fighting that way and still utterly dominating the fight you don’t really see it in the other divisions but then lately we haven’t been seeing these long title runs either because the other divisions are more competitive. Did Anderson SIlva completly change his fight strategy from what it was against Rich Franklin, Dan Henderson or Nate Marquardt or did those guys just present greater challenges that pushed the fight to higher levels? You couldn’t just fight for a easy decision against a guy like Dan Henderson because he isn’t going to allow you to do that but Silva was able to easily take apart Cote and Leites without pushing the fight too hard.
Continuing your football analogy...
Good point, however you can take it a step further and acknowledge that the BCS poll does not give Florida any points for even playing against the Citidel, let alone beating them. Frequently, they will not even be in the top 2 spots at the end of the season because of joke games like this that kill their stregnth of schedule rating. Sometimes these games are not even shown on ESPN Gameplan…that’s how bad they are. Somehow, though, Silva-Leites is the main event of a PPV.
by P4P is a stupid concept on Apr 22, 2009 1:18 PM EDT reply actions
Actually, now that I think about it, if Florida only beats the Citidel say 21-17 (similar to a 48-47 decision), Florida would cet completely disrespected by the football community. They would also get hit in the BCS rankings. The are basically required to win by a score in the neighborhood of 70-3 in order to maintain their status.
by P4P is a stupid concept on Apr 22, 2009 1:36 PM EDT up reply actions
Yes but that was only on one judges card the other two judges overwhelmingly scored the fight for Anderson Silva(49-46 , 50-46). Heck it’s very common to get one odd judges score in MMA.
True, but the one judge that scored it so close supports the arguement that some people think it was a very close (i.e. equally sucky and boring) fight, while others think that is was a dominant performance (like the 50-46 score).
by P4P is a stupid concept on Apr 22, 2009 1:45 PM EDT up reply actions
Either way, a lot of people feel that if you are promoted as the #1 p4p fighter in the world, especially if it is highly debateable, you have to live up to a much higher standard that just winning a decision over a severely outmatched (and some would say totally undeserving) opponent. i.e. Florida is ranked #1 in the BCS poll, they are required to beat the Citidel 70-0. If they win 21-17, they are not #1 anymore. They get skipped over by Oklahoma, who just beat Texas (a much better opponent than the Citidel) 56-14.
by P4P is a stupid concept on Apr 22, 2009 1:47 PM EDT up reply actions
Anderson Silva doesn’t give a damn about being the #1 p4p fighter in the world he is concerned with remaining the Middleweight champion of the world, the belt is infinatly more important than some silly subjective ranking.
I totally agree. He the man at middleweight, and I (or Tim Sylvia) would ahve done the same thing. I’m just saying my arguement is the basis for the fans giving him shit for his performance.
by P4P is a stupid concept on Apr 22, 2009 1:53 PM EDT up reply actions
He deserves fan ridicule and Dana White has every reason to be pissed but entertaining the fans is the UFC’s problem, Anderson SIlva’s job is to win fights. Going back to the Florida vs Citadel football game, when you book that kind of crap then you shouldn’t be surprised when you get a lopsided groaner of a game. Put Anderson Silva in there with someone who wants to knock his head off his shoulders and is capable of taking that belt away and he won’t be able to get away with this kind of crap.
I agree 100%. I would argue that if Silva really wanted to challenge himself, he would ger pissed at the UFC for throwing him punching bags like Cote’ and Leites. There is nothing that says the Champion can’t call out good fighters. I think he’s kind of called out Wandy (thank God). I’m pretty sure if Silva told Zuffa “I want a piece of Maia/Bisping/Wandy/etc.”, they would be happy to make it happen. I have no idea why the UFC thought Cote’ or Leites was a good idea. My guess is lack of options. Bisping, Maia and Wandy just showed up recently. Hendo needs to get his act together. Marquart might have a future. Things are looking bright in the future for middleweight, but up until recently is was pretty barren.
by P4P is a stupid concept on Apr 22, 2009 2:05 PM EDT up reply actions
There isn’t a written rule either way in terms of how aggressive a fighter has to be, save for one rule in the Unified Rules about passivity or avoiding contact (something Leties is guilty of) or that aggression is a basis of scoring. But since Leites was essentially helpless, Silva almost wins by default.
But this argument falls apart when we quickly go back and watch tape. Silva was in positively no danger and literally joking around with his time in the cage (see here for a clear example of absolute waste of time manuevering in round 4: http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/6693/rscth4.gif). The notion that Silva had to up his risk to finish the fight is demonstrably false. When we watch the fight again, Leites had neither a jab at all nor did he flop continuously with a minor exception in round 4. There were at least 7 instances of Leites covering up to avoid damage. He neither evaded nor fired back. Silva simply chose to milk the fight for 5 rounds. Is that his “right”? I suppose so, but it’s also my right and quite clear that Silva offered a half-assed effort when there was no clear risk to finishing Leites. People can choose to say it’s ok, but I that’s where we differ. It’s pointless and damaging to the fans when it doesn’t need to be. The idea that Silva had to risk his health or the win to finish or attempt to finish Leites is not supported by the actions of a helpless Leites.
And in football, when there is a defensive shutdown, it’s done by a defense aggressing the lower tiered offensive squad. It’s blitzing the QB, intercepting passes, shutting down the run. That’s not hanging back, that’s ensuring the underdog has nowhere to go.
"minor exception in round 4"
That should be round 3. Round 5 Leites flops, too, but not nearly as often.
With regards to the football analogy, the Smart Football article was really addressing the game from an offensive standpoint. So yes a huge favorite should be aggressively blitzing and generally taking advantage of the athletic advantage as much as possible. But on offense, they don’t need to be throwing 50 yard bombs and should instead pound the run game, throw 5 yard slants, etc. etc. Boring shit to a fan, but guaranteeing victory.
As for holding back…I don’t know. I definitely see your arguments, and watching live thought to myself, “I don’t know why he pulled away there.” At the same time though, while Leites would cover up, I never got the feeling he was imminently close to be stopping. The moment that sticks out most to me is a spot where Silva landed two or three huge shots to Leites who laid on his side and covered his head. I’m not going to go back and find that spot so I could be off base here, but I remember that he was moving his hips and successfully got his legs in between him and Silva and which point Silva stood up. That was the closest I thought he was to being finished, and I still didn’t think Yves Lavigne was about to step in.
Also, another fight I’d like to bring up is GSP/Fitch. Again, not a great analogy because it had action throughout. But! GSP couldn’t/wouldn’t finish even though he had Fitch very visibly rocked/hurt at multiple times (at least 3 from memory) during the fight.
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
That's exactly what I saw Anderson do...
Blitzing his defense with any strike he wanted, intercepting his punches, and stuffing his takedowns. I was disappointed that we didn’t get a highlight reel KO, but Thales posed no threat besides capitalizing on a mistake. Honestly, I took Anderson not finishing as a matter of honor, it’s one reason (besides sick KO’s) that I like Anderson. Bad matchup, sell a challenge not an execution UFC…
Actually, the Tampa 2 defense is a passive defense which prefers to allow small gains while aiming to eliminate big gains. Indianapolis won the Super Bowl a few years ago with this strategy. It forces teams to be more methodical in working their way down the field. Essentially, the offensive team has to exhibit offensive skill and execute consistently or be forced to punt. This is similar to what Anderson did to Thales.
An aggressive defense would be akin to anticipating the QB and jumping the route, or blitzing frequently. But it opens you up to get beaten for a big play if you misread. That there would be what Anderson did to his previous opponents.
One other flaw in the Florida situation...
they MAKE their own schedule in that case. Silva was given his opponent. I’m not saying anything other than to point out the obvious difference in Florida choosing the game themselves.
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
http://CurseOfRonKarkovice.blogspot.com/
by Brent Brookhouse on Apr 22, 2009 1:48 PM EDT reply actions
Florida only chooses their non-conference schedule.
Arguing on the internet is like being in the special olympics, even when you win you are still retarded.
Right...
I’m speaking specifically of the Citidel example
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
http://CurseOfRonKarkovice.blogspot.com/
by Brent Brookhouse on Apr 22, 2009 1:49 PM EDT up reply actions
Oh, got it.
Arguing on the internet is like being in the special olympics, even when you win you are still retarded.
In that case, Silva should get pissed at the UFC for disrespecting him and giving him cans like Cote' and Leites.
by P4P is a stupid concept on Apr 22, 2009 1:55 PM EDT up reply actions
Who the fuck should the UFC have given him?
Other than Okami, who can really say they’ve been jobbed out of a shot at Silva?
by Derek Suboticki on Apr 22, 2009 3:17 PM EDT up reply actions
I am split on this issue.
While I wish Silva was more aggressive, Leites was disgraceful in that performance. There is plenty of blame to go around here for both of them. While it is Silva’s job to fight whoever the UFC puts in front of him & do his job the right way. The UFC really needs to give someone who can truly threaten him to get him going. Just like when GSP got beat by Serra, he clearly came out underestimating Serra & was not threatened by him at all and it cost him.
Arguing on the internet is like being in the special olympics, even when you win you are still retarded.
Low-Risk/High-Reward
It’s hard to criticize Silva when, as Fagan points out, he gives himself a >95% chance of winning and obtaining his win bonus. Judging from his past salaries Silva was probably on something like $300k/$300k so winning is a tremendous pay boost for him. The $70k KotN bonus is peanuts to getting an extra $300k. Not to mention that keeping the belt will boost his pay in his next fight and give him more chances for endorsements.
It’s a trend we’ll most likely see more of in the higher weightclasses when 1 punch is often lights out. Let’s say Silva unleashes completely on Leites. How often does he win now? 80%? 75%? Still the vast majority of the time but it’s much higher risk.
If the UFC wants to promote action they have to open their checkbooks. Imagine if Silva got $300k/$300k/$300k (to show/to win/to finish). I guarantee Leites would have been dropped in the 2nd or 3rd.
I’m not sure how I feel about offering money to finish, but that would be an interesting experiment nonetheless.
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
Maybe I am not considering something,
but what would be the downfall of offering money to finish?
Arguing on the internet is like being in the special olympics, even when you win you are still retarded.
For whatever reason, I immediately thought of kickbacks to the opposition to take a dive, but I suppose that’s possible as it is. I guess it is a pretty good idea.
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
Yeah, but I guess that I just am hoping that kind of stuff
does not happen.
Arguing on the internet is like being in the special olympics, even when you win you are still retarded.
Mike Brown knows what’s up:
“Leites should have tried to brawl when he had the opportunity. He was losing either way, so he should have taken the risk. Title shots are few and far between, so I’m surprised he didn’t throw more punches.”
Not really sure if brawling is the best strategy, but the underlying thought is there.
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
But isn't Leites maximizing...
his chances to not get hurt…and probably to win. His best chance of winning is hoping that Anderson follows him to the ground, not engaging on the feet. So can’t be mad at him…
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
http://CurseOfRonKarkovice.blogspot.com/
by Brent Brookhouse on Apr 22, 2009 2:18 PM EDT up reply actions
No offense
but I think you might have missed what I took to be the point of the article. I think Fagan was stating that for Anderson, his “chances to not get hurt” didn’t diminish his “chances to win”, while for Leites, they did.
"I see him beating Anderson Silva. I see him picking him apart. Him at a 131 years old...(trails off)." - Tito on Belfort at Affliction:DOR
by Rundownloser on Apr 22, 2009 2:33 PM EDT up reply actions
Careful guys...
being critical of guys is fine. Don’t cross the line though…
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
http://CurseOfRonKarkovice.blogspot.com/
by Brent Brookhouse on Apr 22, 2009 2:30 PM EDT reply actions
oops, my bad
Arguing on the internet is like being in the special olympics, even when you win you are still retarded.
We also need to remember Anderson is 34 years old…older than the Nogueira brothers
This absolutely blew my mind for some reason.
The age of Brazilian fighters is like dog years. Wandy is only 32 but 84 in Brazilian fight years. Compare that to Rich Franklin who is 34 but looks like a 23 year old Brazilian fighter.
Those guys definitely age quite a bit.
But I still have a hard time believing some of their ages. Just like with Latin baseball players, it would not surprise me to find out that these guys are 4-5 years older at least.
Arguing on the internet is like being in the special olympics, even when you win you are still retarded.
by dnevil001 on Apr 22, 2009 3:14 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Pride really took its toll on a lot of guys and I’m sure the Vale Tudo fights were no picnic either. When you look at Wanderlei SIlva with 43 fights or Antônio Rodrigo Nogueira with 38 fights and compare it to Anderson Silva’s 28 fights(or Chuck Liddell with just 27) and it becomes apparent where the premature aging comes from.
Just 27?
In my mind, anyone with more than 20 fights has fought a ton.
Arguing on the internet is like being in the special olympics, even when you win you are still retarded.
Oh I agree as far as what we are used to but Kazushi Sakuraba has had 39 fights, Melvin Manhoef has had 29 MMA fights and 42 K-1 fights, Gilbert Yvel has had 49 MMA fights, Gary Goodridge has 44 MMA and 35 K-1 fights, Babalu has had 39 MMA fights, Jeff Monson has had 38 MMA fights and Ikuhisa Minowa has had 79 MMA fights. For a lot of guys out there that fought overseas 27 fights is just getting warmed up. Some people gripe about the UFC only having guys fighting 2 or 3 times a year but when you look at those guys who fight more than that it really shows on them.
True, but a lot of those guys were in an older era
or fought mostly overseas & let’s not forget that Chuck spent several years as champ so he would obviously not be defending the belt too often.
Arguing on the internet is like being in the special olympics, even when you win you are still retarded.
The overseas fights was the point, they just fight a lot more often (particularly in Japan and Brazil). You have to wonder if part of Anderson Silva’s worrying about his age and health comes from training with Nogueira and seeing what all those fights have done to him. I mean he’s younrger than Anderson Silva but he looks like he could be his grandfather.
Rec’ing a front page article!
People need to understand this article. Would an overmatched team continually call QB sneaks and FB runs until the end versus a superior opponent? Thales Leites did the MMA equivalent, minimizing his chances of winning. After a loss, the sports media likes to call this “playing to not lose”.
The example of Florida vs. the Citadel is a good parallel to explain why GSP has recently been GnPing his opponents into the ground since the Serra loss. It’s his most effective and least risky strategy, just as standup is Anderson’s.
The one element that comes into play in MMA is that a fight can be ended at any time, not simply when time runs out. And there are no backups to substitute in case of injury, which makes going for the finish (100% win) in MMA more attractive than winning by decision (<100% chance to win because of injury/fluke). Of course, Anderson should understand that a finish is in his interest, but if he is willing to risk the threat of injury/fluke, it’s his perogative.
"explains why GSP has recently been GnPing his opponents into the ground since the Serra loss"
RECD. I have been saying this for a while now. GSP realizes the risks involved with standing too much in MMA, which is why he has become so dominant with his wrestling. Not a knock on him at all, just an observation.
Arguing on the internet is like being in the special olympics, even when you win you are still retarded.
He plays to his strengths, which are explosive wrestling and ground striking/control. This is not to say that he’s a bad striker or Anderson is not a capable grappler, but they both have different ways in which they can completely shut down their opponents.
But his strengths previously were his striking & athleticsm.
He has adapted to the wrestling for the reason I stated above.
Arguing on the internet is like being in the special olympics, even when you win you are still retarded.
That is definitely why he refused to stand with BJ in the first 2 rounds.
"My job is a decision-making job, and as a result, I make a lot of decisions." --George W. Bush, The Decider, Lancaster, Pa., Oct. 3, 2007
BJ isn’t an easy fighter to get to the floor, and GSP used the first two rounds to set up what he wanted to do.
Instead of continually shooting in on a fresh BJ, he pressed BJ against the cage and leaned on him (low risk) in order to tire out the shoulders. With BJ’s arms tired and hand speed slowed, GSP was able to get into optimal takedown range more easily with less risk.
So in your best estimation, why would GSP choose to take down a completely flustered BJ when he was landing everything he wanted while standing?
you should fight to win, not to "not lose."
anyone remember when randy couture was retired and decided to come back to challenge tim sylvia for the heavyweight title. one of the things he stated was that he felt he could beat tim b/c tim was fighting “not to lose,” instead of to win. while anderson silva has some legitimate points in that leites was not the aggressor, i still think he is full of crap.
some people say they don’t blame him for not “risking his assets” or protecting his belt, etc. i find that a load of bull. playing it safe and not using his skills to decisively win imo is a copout. no one is saying to rush in there wild, or to take undue risks, and that unfortunately is where subjectivity plays a huge role. i believe truly that anderson has the capability of fighting more aggressively and using his skills more openly than he has in the last two fights w/o risking his status or title; and his statements that he is doing his job is just smoke and mirrors.
it may be a bad analogy, but should a person who has the ability to build the taj mahal instead build a regular mansion? yes, they still built something beautiful and “did their job” but is that the result we and they really want to live with forever? i can’t see justifying any sport or endeavor by putting in just enough effort to accomplish the “win.” i guess it’s a matter of being willing to risk falling, and if so, do you fall on your sword in your attempt at greatness or keep the sword in your holster most of the fight? again, it’s subjective, but the answer seems pretty clear to me.
by theflyingtsunami on Apr 23, 2009 2:09 AM EDT reply actions
Look at the score cards, Anderson did Decisively Win.
He just didn’t win in a flashy exciting way. Hell, if this was a boxing match they would be saying that he put on a clinic.
Good article. It’s this logic where I have to say that DW is a good executive. He’s very good at blaming others for his mistakes. Anderson Silva didn’t embarrassed him. Dana White embarrassed Dana White for hyping Anderson so much and “undisputed P4P” and not putting on a competitive fight. Prefight betting odds haven’t been this bad for any other fight in Main Event fights for a long time.
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.
