Minimizing Risk in MMA Can Incur Real Costs

by Cannon Jacques on Apr 27, 2009 7:12 PM EDT in News Comment 32 comments

We're more than a week removed from the much debated Anderson Silva vs. Thales Leites title fight. The ridiculous generalizations spawned from the affair are disconcerting to say the least. Some feel that those who wanted Silva to work harder for a finish could only be ill-informed, "bloodthirsty" newcomers to the sport of MMA. Similarly, some on the other side have levelled outlandish claims in an attempt to refute others who saw something appealing in Silva's performance. I can't say that I'm surprised by ill-conceived and uninspired arguments, but they're irritating, nonetheless. It doesn't matter the situation. If you're supporting a sport with your enthusiasm and money, you have a right to air your grievances, whether it's with your voice, your dollars or both.

Although combatants on both sides of the issue have cooled down, there are still some questions surrounding Silva and the less than aggressive strategy he employed against Leites. Jake Rossen makes several salient points regarding the roles of fighters and fans alike:

Silva -- or any fighter -- isn’t at blame. They do what’s appropriate in the rules. If he had gotten a point deduction for passivity, perhaps the fight would have played out differently. Better: Since Leites was told to stand up after flopping to his back, where’s the fairness in forcing Leites to play Silva’s game? If Silva didn’t want to engage standing, why not bring him to the mat in the same way Leites was brought to his feet?

None of this happened, of course, and Silva was allowed to cherry-pick only the most opportune times to land strikes. The fight is almost MMA’s version of "The Blair Witch Project," hailed as brilliant minimalism by some and an eye-gouging disaster by others.

There’s no accounting for taste. And if Silva ends his next bout with a vicious knockout, this will all be forgotten. But if his stature in the sport now compels him to compete with no momentum and no aggression, seeking only to preserve a sterile legacy, then observers can do worse than simply deduct points -- they can deduct revenue.

An athlete competing to win in a way that's most conducive to the individual's career is hard to fault. We're talking about the highest level of MMA where even the largest of underdogs is able to inflict significant, possibly long-lasting, damage to the body of his favored opponent. With this in mind, it's hard to expect any fighter to throw caution to the wind in attempt to score a highlight reel finish.

The most vexing variable in the Silva/Leites equation is Anderson Silva, himself. He's faced the best that the UFC middleweight division has to offer, and he's dispatched all comers in impressive fashion except for his last two challengers. In fact, the last two men to face Silva, Patrick Cote and Leites, are at the bottom end of competitors - from a body of work perspective - to challenge middleweight champ. Coincidence? I'm not sure, but it's hard to believe that Leites presented such a danger to Silva from his back that the only viable option was to wait for him to stand.

Silva is very much a victim of his own track record. Significant deviation from the aggressive tendencies of old will be met with a tepid fan response at best. In short, if Silva wants to earn the big paydays and cement his legacy as the best ever (two career goals that seem to be of great importance to him), he really has to do more that win the fight. He has to win over the fans, something Silva hasn't excelled at as of late. Some may contend that this isn't fair; MMA is a sport that shouldn't be perverted by seemingly non-sporting aspects. This is a respectable postition that somewhat ignores reality. Sports are only viable if fans exist. The steep costs associated with the loss of fans are nothing to minimize. Even someone who holds the purity of sport in high regard like myself understands that the sport must also appeal to as many fans as possible. I know this fact isn't lost on Dana White and the others charged with piloting the UFC.

0 recs | Comment 32 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Silva has the right to do whatever he wants, I have the right to not spend money on his ppvs.

Imagine an NFL QB that opts to toss 3-4 yard passes every time. How many teams would be clammering for his services? Not too many, even if he did a good job.

by Lynchman on Apr 27, 2009 9:11 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

The QB doesn’t really have that choice if he is tossing 3-4 yard passes then it’s because that was the game pan the coach put into play.

by who me on Apr 27, 2009 9:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's called West Coast Offense

by Zack Gobie on Apr 27, 2009 9:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Rossen is an idiot

Don’t get me wrong, I wasn’t overly impressed with the fight. However, to suggest that Silva should just concede and be forced to fight on the mat is ridiculous. As a BJJ practitioner, Leites is responsible for bringing the fight to where he excels via takedowns, not flops. Since he couldn’t take Silva down he is forced to fight the fight in his area of weakness. In this regard, Silva controls the pace of the fight, and plays to his strengths. If Leites were able to take Silva down the fight could have had different consequences. Consider a basketball team that excels at the fast break. If their opposition successfully controls the clock and the flow of the game by setting up in the half court offense, using the entire shot clock and controlling outlet passes after a missed shot, the fast break team is forced to adjust. Should the referee adjust the rules and disallow game slowing tactics? Obviously not. So why should Silva suffer the consequences of Leites’ inability? No one comes to Houston Alexanders aid when the fight hits the ground!

by crinow on Apr 27, 2009 9:20 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Admittedly, that’s not a good point if Rossen is contesting that the rules should be adjusted to force action. However, I took it as meaning that Silva was effectively playing within the rules, doing what’s necessary to win by exploiting standups and the like to his advantage.

by Cannon Jacques on Apr 27, 2009 9:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

“exploiting standups and the like to his advantage”

Yeah, it’s a real shame when the champion and arguable best pound for pound fighter in the world, you know, plays to his strengths instead of letting a grossly overmatched challenger who should be ashamed of his performance dictate how and where the fight happen …

by Kierkegaard on Apr 27, 2009 10:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

He should be able to do that...

as long as he’s content with the fallout from the fans and the promotion. I probably could have done a better job of explaining my own position, but you’re totally missing the point. Technically, Silva can fight however he wants within the rules whenever he steps into the cage. The problem is that passivity isn’t the style that I believe most want to see out of the best fighter in the world. He didn’t get a quick title shot by taking Leben to a decision. It’s fine if you thought there was genius in Silva’s most recent strategy. But if you’re trying to characterize my argument as one that’s based on compelling a fighter to fight a certain way for the express purpose of making the fight exciting, you’re winning an argument against a straw man.

by Cannon Jacques on Apr 28, 2009 8:03 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I’m saying there shouldn’t be nearly as much fallout from the fans, and certainly not as much from the promotion. Silva did not fight so passively as to avoid any contact. He did not run in this fight. He did not refuse to engage. He simply refused to go into Leites’s guard when Leites repeatedly flopped onto his back. Some of Silva’s striking in this fight was incredibly innovative. And the difference between this fight and the fights he had against all of those top fighters that he finished is that those top guys didn’t run and flop and avoid any actual engagement. I don’t think you can just look at this fight in complete isolation and say that Silva was “passive” in it compared to previous fights, because in previous fights his opponents actually came to fight and Silva demonstrated that he was the superior fighter. Here he showed he was the superior fighter and was simply smart enough not to let Leites dictate the fight strategy and location. I still say if he had taken the bait and gotten caught with something while in Leites’s guard everyone who is bitching about Silva’s performance in this fight would be screaming about how stupid he was to take the bait. It’s pretty tough to please the fans all the time, especially when their expectations are unreasonable.

I didn’t totally miss the point. And I also understand that you aren’t really endorsing Rossen’s position on this. But you did originally make the statement I quoted, and repeated posts on here now have basically suggested that no matter what Leites did in this fight Silva deserves all the criticism he’s getting because it’s just unfathomable that he would have been in any danger if he’d abandoned his own strategy and gameplan and fought Leites’s fight. I’m of the opinion that he’s the champion, that he almost continually moved forward and looked to engage in this fight, and that Leites should be blamed for the way that fight went after the second round.

I just think there’s some serious middle ground between thinking that Silva’s most recent fight was “genius” and thinking that Silva is suddenly the most boring and passive fighter out there. I think he’s smart, I think he’s the best striker in the UFC, and I think as the champion he should be given some slack in not letting a completely unworthy challenger who actually could be dangerous on the ground force him to chase into full guard.

by Kierkegaard on Apr 28, 2009 9:25 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

There is a lot of middle ground. That’s sort of my thought. However, you can’t really fault people for not liking the fight or Silva’s strategy, considering what we’ve seen from him in the past. Obviously, Leites bears a lot of responsibility for his actions, but what can you expect from someone who didn’t have much chance. If this were one fight, I’d probably just chalk it up as an all-around bad night for Silva, but Silva’s actions in the Cote fight plus this most recent fight could be the start of a pattern. Then again, maybe it’s not, but I can’t fault people for criticizing Silva in a civil manner. Similarly, I don’t fault anyone for defending him or arguing that Leites is much to blame. The only arguments I think are ridiculous and without merit are the ones that label one side a certain way, making the case that those fans don’t understand as Brian Knapp did in the first link I made.

My point in the statement you quoted was that Rossen was making the case that Silva was well within his right to do what he did. People may not like it, but that’s the way the game is structured.

The problem that the UFC has is that they can’t get behind a fighter who is not fighting in a way that fans want to see. Now, maybe there are more people that enjoy Silva’s “innovative” striking than I’m accounting for. That’s certainly a fair argument if it can be supported. Ultimately, any promotion has to support a product that fans want to buy. That’s especially a big deal when you have to sell each event on its own merits. That’s where Silva and the other big name competitors come into play. If there’s little demand for their style, or less demand than another fighter on the roster who could be substituted in their place, you can’t expect the fighter in question to keep on getting prominent placement and the subsequent marketing push.

I love to watch Silva when he’s utilizing his laser-like striking as a tool to dismantle his opponent. It’s certainly subjective, but I haven’t seen that resolve in his two most recent outings, even considering the shortcomings of his opponents. The UFC hasn’t had very many good opponents to draw from at middleweight, and that’s probably contributing to Silva’s fighting. With that said, I still think at least some of the criticisms are valid.

by Cannon Jacques on Apr 28, 2009 11:06 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Very good, very thoughtful response. I don’t really disagree with anything you said in that post.

Well said, Cannon.

by Kierkegaard on Apr 28, 2009 11:53 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Cool. I wasn’t trying to be argumentative but only trying to make some kind of point. I completely respect your opinion and your willingness to keep the level of debate high.

by Cannon Jacques on Apr 28, 2009 12:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Is this the new “greasegate?” I hunger for new mma news dammit. Go drum up an interview or something. UFC 100, the greatest event of all time is on the horizon, screw 97.

by Josh H. on Apr 27, 2009 9:57 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

It’s the token complainer with that same silly argument that’s made when a past event garners more than two posts. Exercise your peripheral vision and check out the other non-Silva/Leites stuff surrounding this article.

by Cannon Jacques on Apr 27, 2009 10:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

This is why Jake Rossen is dumb.

Since Leites was told to stand up after flopping to his back, where’s the fairness in forcing Leites to play Silva’s game? If Silva didn’t want to engage standing, why not bring him to the mat in the same way Leites was brought to his feet?

MMA fights start from a standing position. If a combatant wants the action of the fight to be on the ground, it’s that combatant’s responsibility to take the other man down. In other words, If Thales wanted to fight Anderson on the ground, then he needed to score a takedown, and he needed to hold him there long enough to advance position, and attempt submissions. He wasn’t able to do this (or he didn’t execute correctly).

Anderson, however, controlled where the action of the fight took place. He landed a few meaningful shots, but for the most part, only threw enough strikes to score points, and get a lead on the judge’s scorecards. He did his job, but not to the standard that fans were used to, and not in impressive fashion. He certainly could’ve thrown more strikes, and engaged more often, but chose not to, because it might have potentially left him open for a takedown, which would’ve been potentially dangerous.

They were both at fault for not engaging often, and employing a safe gameplan, but i’d say that the blame should be about 70/ 30, with Leites taking the brunt. Thales refused to clinch up and attempt takedowns (presumably because of how dangerous Anderson is at striking in the clinch), and rarely threw/ landed meaningful strikes. His gameplan consisted of A) Throwing single, telegraphed strikes from a distance, B) Shooting for telegraphed takedowns at range, and C) Falling to his back when his shots failed. IMO, he did this to avoid an embarrassing KO loss.

Supporting all Las Vegas MMA.

'09 is the year of the FW's.

by ElliotMatheny on Apr 27, 2009 10:36 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Anderson and Leites fought like shit no matter how you want to spin it. You act like Silva would have fought great if Leites had thrown punches, I doubt it. Silva would have thrown the same amount of punches and danced around just like he did for Cote. Leites’ horribleness just compounded on Silva’s horribleness for an absolutely horrible fight that would kill MMA if it was used as a blueprint for future fight plans. .

by Dropkick434 on Apr 27, 2009 11:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

So I take it...

you haven’t seen any of Silva’s fights? Like against Leben, Marquardt, Franklin 2x, and Hendo? Those were all opponents who engaged him on the feet. Leben got brutally KtFO. Marquardt got rocked, and swarmed with GnP. Franklin got demolished by knees in their first and second fight. Hendo got caught being sloppy in the standup, got rocked, fell to the ground to avoid being knocked out, and then got the shit choked out of him.

We’ve seen this before, where 2 fighters that generally finish fights, and are exciting, have a stalemate (out of respect for the others abilities); take Cote vs. Almeida for example. Cote was coming off several quick KO’s, and Almeida was coming off a few impressive subs; noone in their right minds thought that fight would go to decision- it was either Cote by (T)KO, or Almeida by sub.

Not saying that they both weren’t being cautious, but I think part of it is the fact that it was a title fight. When the stakes in a bout are so high, the champion doesn’t want to lose his title, and the challenger wants to gain the title. Sometimes the fighters become cautious. See: Uno vs. Pulver. See also: Arlovski vs. Sylvia III. You get the point.

Supporting all Las Vegas MMA.

'09 is the year of the FW's.

by ElliotMatheny on Apr 27, 2009 11:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

This topic is getting really boring. Its too bad it was the last big event for a while so people have nothing to talk about

by EazyEismydad on Apr 27, 2009 11:19 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Where is Elite XC when you need them

by bigweeze on Apr 28, 2009 12:01 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, I wouldn’t mind seeing Kimbo get knocked out again…haha.

by kyfm621 on Apr 28, 2009 12:08 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Leites should be relegated to undercard status for the rest of his fights and then pushed out of the UFC. Both fighters deserved a yellow card for refusing to engage. I understand an intelligent battle, but this was not that fight. This was a challenger who refused to engage the Champion and therefore is the main cause of the problem.

by JAYGK95 on Apr 27, 2009 11:49 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

The best way to spin this is hopefully sometime down the road Dana can petition athletic commisions to revise the rules to add a “yellow card” of some sort in case something this bad happens again. I don’t even think it was all that bad, but if the ref could have penalized them, I would definately support that.

by kyfm621 on Apr 27, 2009 11:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I initially would have started with a one point deduction to Thales Leites for flopping and used that opportunity to warn the Champion that he too is not exempt from a deduction either. I commend the ref for not going there, as he could’ve (and should’ve) used the ruling of timidity to force TL to engage Silva.

by JAYGK95 on Apr 28, 2009 12:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The problems are structural

It is the fighter’s responsibility to win fights. It is the promotion’s responsibility to market the product and cater to fans.

To whatever extent this sport has a pro-wrestling component, that is entirely up to the promotion to manage. The promotion may sometimes enlist the fighters to do some promotional work which it packages as it chooses, but the promotion’s control stops at the ropes or cage.

The only way for the promotion to influence the style or outcome of fights is to do so structurally, by creating incentives, disincentives or rule tweaks. My response to Greasegate, and Greasegate II for that matter, is the system must be tweaked to eliminate this phenomenon. Rather than scapegoating this or that camp or fighter, I would rather advocate for rule changes, perhaps banning vaseline entirely, and closer supervision of corners by athletic commissions, etc. In the case at hand, perhaps a yellow card system is in order, or some other penalty for inactivity or lack of aggressiveness, perhaps a point deduction.

Another fundamental responsibility of management is match-making. Silva is the victim of piss-poor match-making for the second time in a row. No one at Middleweight can challenge him, and Cote and Leites are not even on top of that heap. Silva wants to do something different, something challenging, which is why he is tempted to wade into boxing.

Silva deserves to be put on a superfight-only regimen by the UFC. From now until he retires, he needs nothing but mega-fights against the likes of GSP, Wanderlei, Rampage, Lesnar.

by klown on Apr 28, 2009 12:26 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Well done. Yeah. I hated it. As a fan the fight was total junk. Silva was obviously not trying and that’s what made it so junk. What brings me to the sport is that there’s so much on the line for each guy. That’s so intense. He just absolutely HAS to win. Silva’s fight had none of that. Some of the stuff he did was amazing and insane and terrific, but the fight was awful, and I’d stop watching if fights became like this and that’s the bottom line. It was his fight and it’s his right to fight that way, but he won’t win more fans to him and the sport (I don’t think). But it was ultimately just one fight so I’m not jumping to any conclusions. It’s just a damned shame such an amazing fighter is throwing his abilities down the drain.

by Dooda on Apr 28, 2009 1:06 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I'm with Dooda

If all fights started to look like Silva’s last two I would no longer be watching MMA, period.

by MMARich on Apr 28, 2009 8:43 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

QFT, Silva lost a lot of respect from me there, I didn’t think Leites deserved a title shot either but he isn’t the champion.

by pr0cs on Apr 28, 2009 8:56 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I used to be a big NBA fan

But I rarely watch it anymore. Teams became so defensive minded and too many rules made it so the refs are calling fouls every time down the court for things that I couldn’t even see. Then, because of the rules players were figuring out how to manipulate the rules to get the other team to gain fouls etc. The NBA today is a pale comparison of the sport I watched in the 80’s and early 90’s.

by Dooda on Apr 28, 2009 12:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I hope this fight is the catalyst for some rule changes. In a sport that is still evolving rapidly, it seems foolish to not adjust the rules when required. I understand Thales’ decision to fall to his back as its a safe place for him and enabled him to avoid being vulnerable to the counter strike. Similarly, I understand Andersons timidity as any over zealous attacks may have left him open for the take down.

The problem here, and its a growing problem, is the acceptability of timid strategies designed to eke out decision wins. Take minimal risks, avoid getting hit or putting myself in harms way and score more points than my opponent. Maybe I get lucky and land a big shot, maybe I dont but as long as Im ahead on the score card Im happy. Especially in title fights. If I have won rounds 1, 2 and 3, I just need to protect my lead and ensure the fight goes to a decision and I win. Why take risks in rounds 4 or 5 when I’ll win via decision if it goes to the judges? Bispings comments after he beat Leben was the first time I had ever heard a fighter admit to actually being content and seeking a decision win.

The solution is simple. Punish timidity. Whether you do it with point or purse deductions or something else doesnt bother me as long as the fighter is motivated to be aggressive and bring the action. If you look at the Leites v Silva fight, early on when nothing is happening the fighters get a verbal warning, which they essentially get already, “C’mon guys, we need some action” however if no action comes, both fighters purses are cut.

Similarly, Leites falls to his back once…..ignored. Twice, a warning and on the 3rd time he gets a point/purse deduction. He wont be falling to his back a 4th time.

You cant fault the fighters for fighting by the rules so if we want to ensure the number of these slow, safe fights doesnt continue, I hope the rules are ammended to discourage playing it safe.

by GeeDub on Apr 28, 2009 2:22 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Have you ever had a favorite spot to eat out? Have you ever had a winning dish you would order – where you were always satisfied?

Have you ever had this dish come out and taste like total shit? The first time you may chalk it up with the ingredients not being as fresh as usual or the chef being off his game that day…. If it happens again I gaurantee you will never order that shit again. That bad taste is hard to forget.

Andersons PPV equity is kaput…

by mmalogic on Apr 28, 2009 3:59 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

hahaha I like that anology……….I know just the spot!! Kim Chi Kitchen. Great little Korean joint. Tiny little place, dodgy looking but great food. Used to be queues a mile long. They upgraded their premises and the first time I went to the new place…….food was a let down, but thought nothing of it…………..2nd time back…..bad again and have never gone back!!!!!

by GeeDub on Apr 30, 2009 3:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not Silva's fault...

…the blame should go to Leites and the ref. If you are on the ground waiting for someone to jump on you but they stand and want to strike, the ref should make you stand. If you are standing and not throwing punches, then that is the fighters fault. Silva is the champ. It is up to the challenger to go after the champ to win the belt.

by mightyhokie on Apr 28, 2009 10:23 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I just don’t see it that way. Both guys are paid to engage. Both guys are paid to fight. Leites’ style is BJJ and he tried it and it failed. Silva’s style is pin-point perfect and powerful striking and he just barely used it at all. I don’t see how this can be put entirely on Leites. Leites flopped to the ground a couple of times, but it’s not like he did it every time Silva was in striking distance.

by Dooda on Apr 28, 2009 12:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs