« Joe Rogan talks about judo vs. wrestling, how UFC has become a wrestler’s game, and how that will impact the Chael Sonnen/Anderson Silva fight | Home | Din Thomas stands up for Shine fights promoter in whole cancellation mess »
Is it really a burden to have an undefeated record in MMA?
By Zach Arnold | May 19, 2010
This question arises from a discussion that Josh Gross had on his radio show this week in which he was talking about the bad loss that Brett Rogers is coming off to Alistair Overeem. Rogers lost to Fedor last October and now has lost to Overeem and the question is whether or not Brett Rogers can make a strong comeback in Mixed Martial Arts.
When you read this passage from Josh’s radio show this week, you’ll notice something that you hear a lot in American sports and I’ll address it after you read the quote.
“For Rogers, difficult position now. This is his second loss in a row, he’s now 10-2. I think you know usually in MMA a guy gets his first loss, like a Lyoto Machida. Lyoto Machida apparently feels you know what’s the way that his camp described it to me, he felt like he was unburdened, that all of a sudden he had this pressure lifted from his shoulders of carrying this undefeated record. You can think of it that way and I guess for some guys it’s worked, but for someone like Rogers who is not terribly technical, who makes a lot of mistakes but got away with it because of his power and his size, all of a sudden he doesn’t have that sense of invincibility that he had before the Fedor fight, now especially after getting just manhandled by Alistair Overeem, you got to wonder where his head’s at and what the rest of his career is going to look like. I think he still has it in him to improve, but he’s got to get with a camp that day-in and day-out he’s sparring with people as good if not better than him, he has to get with a camp that can make him a better wrestler, he has to get a camp that can refine his striking and you know not rely so much on the power but find a way to make him more efficient. I think Rogers still has a future in MMA but I’m not sure to what end based on the last two fights that we’ve seen.”
The argument that being undefeated in MMA is a bad thing is the type of argument that you hear every year in NCAA (College) Basketball when you have a team of 18-21 year olds who go 25-0 or are on a big winning streak as they are heading into the March Madness tournament and then there may be a let up loss towards the end of the regular season and you hear coaches publicly say that the loss is good for them, that it will take off some of the pressure and it will help their team relax.
If you’re strong enough to win 10 or more games (or in this case, fights) in a row in Mixed Martial Arts, as long as the competition that you continue to fight is progressively getting better each fight out, why is losing a fight a good thing? The optimist would say that when you lose a fight, you can learn from your mistakes and become a better fighter after overcoming adversity. The pessimist says, look, you had the talent to win so many fights in a row, why is a loss supposed to relieve any pressure off your shoulders? If you’re good enough to win that many fights, why would you feel less pressure as a fighter coming off a loss? As we’ve seen in the modern MMA landscape, if you lose a few fights in a row all of a sudden the pressure mounts.
Put me in the camp that says that losing a fight occasionally is not a bad thing. I’m not saying that everyone should do it, but I am saying that given just how much parity there truly is in Mixed Martial Arts, there’s no shame in losing to other top talent. This isn’t boxing, thankfully. By the same token, a ‘great’ baseball team wins 100 games a year and loses… 60-62. Winning 8 and losing 5 per 13 games on average doesn’t sound impressive on paper but in baseball that’s a wonderful year. In basketball, if you win 50 games a year and up losing 30-32 games, a win 5 and loss 3 per 8 games on average clip is pretty strong too. I understand that there is a heavy volume of games in those sports compared to fighting, but are you really more valuable if you are 20-0 versus someone who is 16-4 but after each loss has improved their skill set and polished their game?
Topics: Media, MMA, StrikeForce, UFC, Zach Arnold | 3 Comments » | Permalink | Trackback |
In general, if a guy stays undefeated for a long period of time, it’s typically because he isn’t being tested enough.
I like how being undefeated isn’t a huge deal in MMA. To me, how a fighter reacts after he is defeated tells more about him the fighter then anything else. Some get better (GSP)…. Some fall apart (Torres).
Boxing is much worse where undefeated records are concerned. Boxers can sometimes go full careers undefeated and only have 1 or 2 fights against over .500 opponents…
“I like how being undefeated isn’t a huge deal in MMA. To me, how a fighter reacts after he is defeated tells more about him the fighter then anything else. Some get better (GSP)…. Some fall apart (Torres).”
Exactly my thoughts.
A loss can humble a fighter and make them refocus, and even add new things to their fight set.
GSP himself has repeatedly said his losses (all two of them) have made him a better fighter and made him refocus. He also makes it a habit of say this of all other fighters who suffer their first loss.