The Thursday Throwdown 11.16.06: The Tyson Syndrome
Posted by Jon Hartley on 11.16.2006
Vitor Belfort fails a drug test after his latest loss, Mark Kerr's second attempted comeback falls short. The list goes on and on. Why do we, the fans, continue buying into the idea of fighters regaining their former glory? 411's Jon Hartley looks into this question in The Throwdown! Plus, fighter salary discussion, UFC previews, and do steroids really help?
Some people just never learn. Such people include die-hard fans of Vitor Belfort. I know, I know. I'm beating a dead horse, I'm kicking a man when he's down (must be Pride rules). Come on, though...it's true. How many times can Belfort put up lackluster performances before people learn that the "old Vitor" is not returning and that Belfort is nothing more than a mirage with fight gloves?
October 16, 1998. That was the last time Vitor Belfort decisively and explosively defeated a top opponent. Sure, there was the quick technical knockout and hellacious cut against Marvin Eastman in 2003, but Joe Rogan jumped the gun--as did many of us-- in declaring that the Vitor was back to his old ways. It's not just that he's lost five of his last seven fights, and is just 8-7 since the huge win over Wanderlei Silva in 1998...it's not just the results that matter. It's the wayhe fought. Passively, sometimes apprehensively, with none of the trademark aggression and killer instinct that defined the early years of his career. Not only has he been losing fights, he hasn't been losing particularly good ones. For Belfort, it's obvious to just about any MMA fan that he just isn't focused on fighting anymore, and hasn't been for quite some time.
It's gotten to the point where every time Belfort fights poorly, a swarm of reality takes over the MMA world and everyone realizes that he's never going to be what we thought he could be. Then, before you know it, people start to talk themselves into thinking of Belfort as a title contender...it's like an abusive relationship. "No, I'm telling you, Vitor's still got it! He says he's focused now!" Yeah, sure. And Jim down the street was telling the truth when he said he wouldn't use Sue-Ann as a punching bag for a fifth time, too.
In all fairness, Belfort has had his share of problems. He's battled personal issues, such as the reprehensible kidnapping of his sister shortly before his second fight with Randy Couture. However, personal issues aside, he just doesn't appear to have the motivation he used to. Yet his fans keep watching...anticipating each newly-announced fight as the perfect opportunity for Belfort to finally reach his potential and begin dominating the sport. No matter how many losses he racks up, no matter how many times he disinterestedly refuses to push the pace the way he used to in his fights, the fans never quit making excuses for him-- and they never stop hoping he'll eventually return to form.
Another fighter who has struggled with personal issues and retaining the motivation to compete is Mark Kerr. Kerr recently was defeated by referee stoppage against Mike Whitehead in the IFL; marking Kerr's first fight in two years, and his second since 2001. After the loss, Kerr was upbeat and joked that he was going to keep fighting "until he wins one". But without having the desire to truly compete and be the best, how long will that be? Talented or not, it's just too hard for someone whose heart is not in it to continue defeating fresher, hungrier fighters.
It's hard to say what keeps the figthers coming back. In Kerr's case the answer may be money. Not that Kerr is a money-hungry individual; he simply wants to take advantages of the opportunities that present themselves and set up a good future for himself and those he cares about. For Vitor Belfort, the answer is harder to find. I don't claim to know Belfort's financial situation, but I'm not sure he's fighting just for the money. Perhaps he likes to fight, but doesn't put enough time into his training, like BJ Penn. Maybe he is like many other fighters and simply can't perform in a live fight the way he does in practices and in sparring. Who really knows? One thing is for sure, though...there's simply no way that a fighter of Belfort's talent should be sporting a 14-8 record.
This all reminds me of the later stages of Mike Tyson's career, leading all the way up until present day. There are many people out there who would still kindly shell out $50+ to see Tyson fight, hoping-- just hoping-- that Tyson still has a little "Iron Mike" left in him. Most of us who are capable of rational thought scoff at such a notion, but really, is it so hard to get caught up in the hype? Not nearly as hard as it is to comprehend that someone who once inspired fear in opponents can now barely hang with decent competition. We wonder, "where did all that talent and ability go?" In Tyson's case, at least some of it can be attributed to age. We also know by now that he's simply not interested in competing. Maybe that's the key to the whole thing: that we just don't understand how close top-level athletes are in talent. Seeing a fighter like Vitor Belfort lose to fighters who, although very good, are giving up 20+ lbs. in weight, makes this evident. So does watching the former most dominant fighter in MMA lose to a good, but not great, fighter.
If Belfort, Kerr, and Tyson have taught us anything, it's that when you size up two fighters, don't just look at their wrestling, their striking, their submissions: look at their will to compete. Their drive. Their hearts. When you're fighting at the highest level, skill alone just isn't enough.
Quick Thoughts
--In the last few weeks (it's been a while since I wrote a column, I know), fighter salaries have again become an issue, as the Pride salaries were made public by the Nevada State Athletic Commission, as is their custom. Finally, fans get to find out what Pride pays their fighters, right? Well, not so fast. After UFC die-hards scoffed at the Pride salaries (100k for Fedor Emelianenko?!?), it was revealed and confirmed by Unnamed Sources (among my favorite sources, to be sure) that the NSAC report only shows half, or perhaps less than that, of the true story. It seems that Pride does what the UFC has taken to recently, by paying its fighters bonuses that don't get reported by the NSAC, since they're not technically part of the fight purse. In other words, Pride is supposedly paying their guys a certain amount to fight, but when they get back to Japan they're giving them more as a bonus. It helps the fighters because the non-American fighters don't pay a hefty U.S. income tax. As Sherdog.com's Josh Gross noted, it also hurts the fighters because without knowing what each other are truly getting paid, it's hard to know what market value for any particular fighter truly is.
So who really pays more? The better question is "who cares?". After all, both organizations obviously pay enough to have at least a handful of top fighters on their respective rosters. Say what you will about Rich Franklin's recently-expired contract, with its 21k show money and 21k win bonus per fight, but I find it hard to believe he wasn't making more than that. I believe (though I've never heard anyone confirm this) that the fighters who coach on The Ultimate Fighter get some kind of salary or bonus in addition to the cars, watches, etc. they get. These guys are giving up a couple of months of their time to train fighters and mug for the camera, after all. And besides, anyone who saw Franklin's episode of UFC: All Access knows he's not hurting for money. Let's also not forget that while his fight salary might not have been impressive, his affiliation with the UFC and self-promotion via TUF season 2 landed him a coveted Xyience sponsorship, which from what I've heard is equal or greater than the salaries that most fighters make from competing.
I look at the UFC salaries like this: is it fair to expect a guy to fight for 3k to show with a 3k win bonus? No, probably not. And sure, the same guy might be able to make 5k for a fight elsewhere. But that fight in a lesser organization isn't going to lead to anything much better. The UFC fight, on the other hand, can lead to much bigger and better things. You're not just fighting in the UFC to make a quick buck, it's an investment in your own career. Sure, you don't get paid much the first couple of times you step in the octagon. However, if you can perform well, it opens the door to sponsorships, higher purses with the UFC down the road, and opportunities you would never get in any other American organization. So is it worth it to fight in the UFC for 3k/3k? Of course it is. But you have to look at it as an investment and not as a one-time thing. When a new fighter enters the UFC, they're fighting for an opportunity.
--Nine words no MMA fan wants to hear: "Bobby Southworth and 'Tiger' White to fight for title."
--Sadly, the story of the latest installment of Pride Bushido was not of a triumphant tournament victory or the much-anticipated Denis Kang-Paulo Filho showdown (which of course, didn't happen due to an injury to Filho): it was that the time for same-day tournaments has come and gone. Seriously, what good does it serve to have the final two rounds of a tournament in the same day? Instead of seeing the Kang-Filho fight we deserved, we saw an already beaten Kazuo Misaki win the tournament final. So now what? Inevitably we see a Kang-Misaki rematch and probably a Filho-Kang "what might've been" fight, and all this could have been avoided by simply having the finals on a seperate night. And while we're at it, why the hell are Pride's champions competing in these tournaments? I admire a champion who's willing to throw himself into the fire like that, but what's the point of having the champion fight in the tournament if his belt is on the line? If the champion goes down (like Dan Henderson recently did), he's still the champion, and the tournament winner ends up fighting him anyway...so why not simply keep the champs out and have the winner receive a title shot?
--This may be old news, but bears mentioning in case some of you missed it: Quinton "Rampage" Jackson's second fight in the World Fighting Alliance will be in December against (yawn) Marvin Eastman. Don't get me wrong, I like Eastman and enjoy watching him fight, but he simply is not in the top ten or even twenty in his weight class right now...so what does a fight against him do for Rampage? Nothing. It'll be entertaining, for sure, but I can't help but think that Rampage is wasting valuable time in the prime of his career by fighting in the WFA. I wish the WFA the best, but they simply do not have any top competition for Rampage to fight. It's a shame that we're seeing Rampage-Eastman when we could be seeing Rampage-Liddell 2, or Rampage-Babalu.
--Failed tests for "banned substances" are all the rage in the MMA media now, and for good reason as in recent months we've added Stephan Bonnar, Vitor Belfort and Pawel Nastula to the list. In addition, Kimo has made the Roid Hall of Fame and Kevin Randleman allegedly gave the NSAC a tainted urine sample, supposedly to hide...well, whatever he would be trying to hide. I have previously laughed at the excuses we hear whenever someone fails a urinalysis; what with the "I didn't knowingly take steroids" crap. But now I start to wonder: is it possible that this many athletes are stupid? Or maybe they have been taking supplements, not knowing that they include substances on the no-no list? I know, it makes me roll my eyes, too...but just wonder why in the world an athlete would knowingly ingest a banned substance while knowing they will be tested! It's ridiculous.
One question not many people have looked into: does taking anabolic agents actually improve the fighters' performances? Well, a quick and unscientific study reveals that among MMA violators, we've had the afore-mentioned fellows (Kimo twice, of course), plus Josh Barnett, Nathan Marquardt and Tim Sylvia. Just for kicks, why don't we "pretend" that Randleman was taking some roids on the sly as well. In the fights immediately preceding the banned tests, these fighters had a combined 3-5 record in the fights preceding their urinary hijinx. So, not only are fighters roiding it up more than ever, but it's apparently not even helping their performances!
--After the finale of The Ultimate Fighter 4, it's time once again to re-open a couple cans of worms in the MMA world, the first of which is: what exactly is meant by "intelligently defending" oneself? I'm sure Edwin Dewees would like to know, after he was supposedly beaten via TKO by Jorge Rivera, though he clearly never lost any of his faculties and was completely "with it" as the fight was stopped. For those who didn't see it, it was a familiar situation which found Dewees on all fours and Rivera on his left side, straddling him and throwing punches as Dewees covered the left side of his face with both hands. After several punches, the fight was stopped, to Dewees' immediate disgust. It's always said that when in a situation like that (or more often, when a fighter has been mounted or given up their back and is taking punches), the fighter must "intelligently defend" himself. But isn't covering up and absorbing as little damage as possible the most intelligent defense? I mean, sure you can buck like crazy or flail about and try to escape, which is apparently what referees want fighters to do, but in doing so you will likely take more damage as well as expend unnecessary energy. After all, your hands can't protect yourself at the same time as they post up on the ground to escape a bad position, or reach around an opponent to try to keep them close. In the situation of Dewees, it appeared that he was content to take very little impact from the blows while allowing Rivera to punch himself out by throwing as hard as he could to try to end the fight.
What's even more frustrating is that many times, there is a minute or less left in a round when a fighter finds himself in a bad spot, and he is never allowed to merely cover up and try to survive for the next round. Instead, they are prodded by the referees to squirm around (again, keeping them from deflecting the incoming blows as they are forced to try to improve position) or else the fight will be stopped. One of the more famous cases of this was when Phil Baroni went postal on referee Larry Landless after such a stoppage (in favor of Evan Tanner, one of Baroni's many Team Quest rivals). Among many other things, referees and fighters need to come to a complete understandment of what is deemed intelligently defending and what is not.
--After seeing the craziest judging I've ever witnessed in the Chris Lytle-Matt Serra fight, it's also as clear as ever that judging criteria needs to be explained and understood by all involved as well. I can't recall ever seeing two judges give one fighter each round while another judge gives the opposing fighter every round...especially considering that none of the rounds was particularly dominant for either fighter! Are these judges unaware that they can give 10-10 rounds? And furthermore, do they understand what they're judging? Does anyone? I mean, "octagon control"? What the hell does that mean? If you evade your opponent's takedowns while circling away from the fence ala John Alessio, is that octagon control? Or is it octagon control to chase your opponent around endlessly, forcing him to keep from setting his feet, ala Diego Sanchez? Maybe octagon control means "pinning your opponent against the fence and beating the face off of him"...I sure as hell don't know because its never really defined. Other topics that need to be addressed include: What is a takedown worth? What if the fighter who gets the takedown does absolutely nothing after the fight hits the ground? What is a submission attempt worth? What is a submission escape worth? Until judges have definitive answers to these questions and fighters know what they are supposed to do to win a fight, there will be judging controversies in MMA.
And while we're at it, the ten point "must" system needs to go. That is, unless judges can make better use of it. A fighter shouldn't dominate one round and lose two close ones and lose the entire fight. Fights should either be judged as a whole (like in Pride) or judges should make better use of 10-8 and 10-10 rounds, to ensure that dominant rounds, close rounds and even rounds aren't all scored the same way.
Non-MMA Thoughts of the Week
--Borat. Go see it. Now.
--One thing that irks me about professional team sports: when people say championship teams are "defending" their championships. Sorry, but the Miami Heat aren't defending anything. Neither are the Pittsburgh Steelers, or the St. Louis Cardinals. Or, um...whatever team won the Stanley Cup last season. See, you can't defend something that's not up for grabs. Mixed martial arts fighters and boxers defend their titles, because their titles can be lost and won again and again. Championships in team sports are annual, and can never be taken away. No matter how many times you beat the Miami Heat, you can never change the fact that they were the 2005-06 NBA Champions. If the San Antonio Spurs win this year (God forbid), they won't be the new 2005-06 champs, they'll be this season's champs. So stop, people. They're not defending anything...they're trying to win a new championship.
--Also, stop calling it an "era" whenever a team drafts a new college player, or starts a new quarterback, or hires a new coach. It's ridiculous. Tony Romo starts one game for the Dallas Cowboys and it's called the "Romo era". What?!?! The guy hasn't even played a whole season! That's considered an "era"? Eras are significant portions of time that are associated with historically important events or figures, the term doesn't need to be cheapened to represent the coming of every flash-in-the-pan player or coach that will be gone in a year or less. As a Chicago Bear fan, I'm extra sensitive to this nonsense as I've seen the Kordell Stewart era, the Cade McNown era, the Jim Miller era, the Shane Matthews era, the list goes on and on, and that's all within a few years. Bottom line: stop the nonsense.
--When saying "McDonalds", it's "mick"-donalds, not "mac"-donalds. Anyone who tells you otherwise is probably not someone you should spend any measurable amount of time with.
Reader E-mails
Rams1450 writes:
You had an interesting point about each individual promotion having a top heavy roster. Do you think there will be a time when there is one true "major league" in MMA?
The fact that they have two top promotions, as well as several others who have champions who are better than the lower tier guys in the top promotions hurts the sport as a whole.
The sport seems to be ready to make the jump into mainstream consciousness. Having one true top league would be a HUGE step. Not sure exactly how that would be accomplished, other than UFC going for broke and signing everyone, but it would be a good thing for the sport if it could happen.
I think it would be good if we had a monopoly of sorts in MMA only in that we would finally see all the top fighters facing one another. However, fighters would suffer, as their would be no competition to help drive up fighter salaries. In addition, fans would have to buy whatever that company offered, as there would be no alternative to spend your hard-earned bucks on. Even recently, if a guy like Matt Lindland had an impasse with the UFC, he was screwed unless perhaps Pride would want him. Now there are organizations like the IFL, WFA and Strikeforce who can't compete with the UFC yet but still are able to pay fighters decent salaries if the UFC isn't interested in them. I think it would be great for the sport if the promotions would work together to make superfights happen. However, it's undeniable that the sport will likely succeed either way. Even if we never see Silva-Liddell, which would be truly disappointing...both companies will still continue to thrive and grow. If they do decide to start working together, it will be because not only do they care about making money, but also about giving the fans what they want.
Another fellow (also no name given), asked:
You did say that it was shocking how quickly [Rich Franklin] got beat but you didnt say why. Yes Rich has good stand up skills, but Anderson Silva has trained in the past with Chute Boxe in Brazil. His striking is better then Franklin's. I personally thought that if Silva won it would be quick and if Franklin won it would be a longer fight.
That was indeed the popular opinion before the fight, that a longer contest would benefit Franklin and a shorter one would benefit Silva. And yes, Silva's striking ability is widely known and respected. In any case, it was still shocking to me to see Franklin lose in such a devastating, quick and decisive fashion. I not only found it surprising because of Franklin's talent, but also because his gameplanning is usually top-notch. Franklin has a well-documented ability to plan great strategies out for each opponent he faces, and by not only allowing Silva to clinch him but welcoming that possibility (he said in interviews that he wanted to clinch with Silva), he obviously did not have a good plan for Silva. So no, it's not shocking that Silva won, or even that he won quickly, since Silva is the rare striker who can finish anyone in a hurry...but it is shocking that Franklin would play right into Silva's abilities, hoping to expose a strength advantage and turn the tables on him. Having said that, Franklin has had surgery to repair his badly broken nose and hopes to fight early in 2007. When Franklin and Silva meet again, it will be a very interesting fight.
Random MMA YouTube Moment
Since I bemoaned the wasting of Rampage Jackson's talent earlier, let's remember the glory days. This was near the end of his Pride tenure, when he was in a very tough fight with Ricardo Arona and used his brute strength to end it in a violent flash.
