What's your view on fighters who don't get wins by TKO?

Discussion in 'UFC' started by Kevin, May 22, 2012.

  1. Kevin

    Kevin Administrator Staff Member

    Like most MMA fans, I enjoy the technical elements of fighting and can appreciate when a good move or transition happens on the ground. At the same time, there's nothing like watching two guys stand there and bang instead of dry humping each other for 3 rounds in order to get a judges decision.

    I can understand why fighters fight the way they do though and wouldn't criticise a fighter for being more defensive in some fights or playing it safe in the last round when they have the first two rounds in the bag. You need to play to your strengths and fight intelligently.

    It does get boring watching fighters who always grind out results but those with certain styles (i.e. wrestling) are more likely to go to a decision that others. Take Chael Sonnen for example. I know there are those who love him and those who hate him but he has a fairly decent record at 27-11-1 - a high volume of those do came by decision though.

    GSP is another fighter that has been criticised by some due to him being unable to finish anyone since BJ Penn more than 3 years ago. His last 4 fights, due to them being title fights, have went 5 full rounds. None of these fights have been that close though - he was the dominant fighter in every match. I'm not sure if the criticism is justified or not He was much more vicious earlier in his career though it pays off long term for him to fight this way and not get into brawling matches. He's a smart fighter and this will ensure he gets less injuries and less health problems (granted he has been injured over the last year or so).

    On the other hand you guys like Pat Barry and Dan Hardy. When Pat Barry faced CroCop 2 years ago he had a great record of 5 wins and 1 loss. After his loss to Levar Johnson a few weeks ago his record now sits at 7 wins and 5 losses. Dan Hardy has 4 losses in a row (On paper that looks pretty bad but in reality he's been quite unlucky and fought well in most of those fights).

    I love watching both these fighters as they go in and start throwing punches. I do however think that this lack of defensive fighting can produce the erratic results that mark their records. I can't help but think that if they changed their game up a little they would win more fights...but therein lies the risk of them being boring to watch.

    What's your view on all this? Do you wish fighters who always grind out decisions took more chances? Would you be willing to see one of your favourite fighter fight more conservatively if it meant they would be able to string a few results together and get a title shot'

    Kev
    Microsuck likes this.
  2. tajnz

    tajnz New Member

    Great question!

    I think the end objective is to win and so if it takes conservative fighting to win, then there’s nothing wrong with that in my books. I've often seen fighters who are impatient try a risky move, it fails and then get knocked out. If they just hung on in there they would have won by decision. So having a strategy and following it is smart in my books.

    I'll admit though from a viewership point of view there are some fights where one fighter is far superior to the other yet they just don't finish the fight. I can't understand this and it seems to frustrate fans. You're right it seems some fighters aren't vicious enough anymore.

    I'm still a fan of GSP though. I like his tactical way of fighting. He's one smart man and it comes across evidently in his record. He also is a balanced fighter with a great ground and standing game. I think his conservative style lately has done him favours. After all he seems pretty unbeatable at the moment. Perhaps GSP is conservative because he has been fighting title fights and there is more at stake? Perhaps by not taking chances he respects his opponent and that is another reason he does so well?
  3. Kevin

    Kevin Administrator Staff Member

    I think a lot of it will come from the coaches. If you are winning two rounds of a three round fight, most coaches will tell you to keep doing what you're doing and not take any risks.

    It's difficult as everyone, from top to bottom, wants to see exciting fights, but without a win, a fighter will move down the rankings. There has to be exceptions to this. Look at the Shogun Henderson fight. Both of them were winners in my eyes, regardless of the decision at the end.
  4. Hero Of Time

    Hero Of Time Member

    I think that Chael had a great point in many of his interviews; that these fighters (mostly referring to GSP here) train for 15 minute fights. When it come to 25 minute fights they need to do what they can to preserve energy. Looking at the difference in the fights between 3 and 5 rounds you can see it does play a huge part in it.
    In 3 round fights where they don't come out and bang it is quite disappointing.. All these fighters know that if it goes to the judges they stand a high possibility of being screwed over so I can't see that they like to play them safe
  5. Kevin

    Kevin Administrator Staff Member

    haha it's funny you brought that up as I was going to write the same thing after watching the Sonnen interview on Joe Rogan last night. I think he's right. If they made title fights 3 rounds, GSP would probably come out more aggressively as he wouldn't have to conserve his energy for 5 rounds.
  6. Hero Of Time

    Hero Of Time Member

    Agreed, it would be nice to see even on title fight being 3 rounds as a once off.. just to see if there is indeed a noticeable difference

Share This Page