What makes a great fight? - Fight Forum - MMA - UFC - Boxing - K1

yaiir · 04-15-2007, 10:45 AM

from MMAGame.com Blog » What is considered “a great fight” in MMA?

Quote:

I never intended to use this blog as a place to mouth off but I’ve been baffled at the comments I’ve heard following both Leonard Garcia vs Roger Huerta and Diego Sanchez vs Josh Koscheck, so I decided to make an exception.

Apparently, according to some pretty knowledgeable people (like Joe Rogan, Dana White and Mike Sloan), Huerta vs Garcia was absolutely incredible. I just can’t agree.

Rogan said something along the lines of “one of the greatest UFC fights ever”.
Sloan in the linked article above stated “If the fight between Roger Huerta and Leonard Garcia will not wind up being the fight of the year, then I will probably rob an adult bookstore just to witness whatever fight will top this classic.”

Well, I can think of 2 fights this year already that I would consider far more exciting and technically superior - Gomi vs Diaz and Tyson Griffin vs Frankie Edgar.

Furthermore, on a totally unrelated note, apparently the fight between Diego Sanchez and Josh Koshcheck was absolutely dreadful. Paraphrasing a number of comments I have heard, “Kos was just his usual ****ing boring self doing just enough to win” - a comment usually followed by something to do with hating Kos himself.

So whilst I don’t care to argue that Kos vs Sanchez was a better fight than Huerta vs Garcia, what exactly makes a great fight nowadays and what defines one that sucks?

Garcia vs Huerta - a “great” fight? fight of the year?

In my eyes it was a decent fight but it certainly wasn’t a great one. I respect both fighters and think they put on a good show but I just didn’t really find it that interesting. It was a scrap… A scrap artificially manufactured to build Huerta as a contender and a face for the UFC’s march into Latin America.

Garcia was picked as an opponent for a reason - he has a good chin (no KO losses) but without the power or polished striking ability to pull off an upset and spoil the UFC’s marketing plans (9 wins, 1 by KO). To me, the manufactured nature of the bout further diminishes it’s “greatness”. It was designed to be a scrappy war with Huerta winning in dominating fashion and that’s exactly what happened.

As far as I am concerned, for a fight to be great you have to have all or most of the following -

1. A close and competitive fight.
This was a 3 round domination by Huerta. When Bruce Buffer stepped up to the mic, it was 30-27 all day long. With just that one point made, how is this possibly the fight of the year?

2. A display of extraordinary skill.
There was no extraordinary skill displayed. As much as I respect the fighters, I actually laughed out loud at one point during round 3 because of one particular punch thrown by Garcia. Someone I was talking to at the time described it as two drunks fighting because they both looked so gassed…. Infact both fighters looked pretty gassed after the first round.

3. A display of extraordinary determination.
Garcia showed heart but not to an extraordinary level. If getting punched a lot and not quitting was extraordinary, the top 5 fights of all time would all involve either Mark Hunt or Cabbage.

Added to this point, many won’t have noticed but Garcia told his corner after round one “he has no power”. I’ve seen people comment that they were “throwing bombs” for the entire fight. Well those bombs appear to contain very little in the way of explosives.

4. Unpredictability
Did something happen that you weren’t expecting? Did anyone expect Diaz to Gogoplata Gomi? Did anyone expect an unknown in Frankie Edgar to dominate future UFC lightweight contender, Tyson Griffin? Did anyone expect Roger Huerta to dominate Leonard Garcia for 3 rounds? Spot the odd one out?

Diego Sanchez vs Josh Koshcheck - “Absolutely awful”?

I have two beefs with the reaction to this fight. First of all I don’t think it was an awful fight and more importantly, if you’re going to call it a boring fight, I don’t think that’s Josh Koscheck’s fault!

Sure it wasn’t a brawl but is that all we want nowadays? Do you have to adopt a reckless gameplan to be appreciated? Essentially it wasn’t a brawl because a fighter had developed good technical striking. What a crime!

Sure it wasn’t a heart thumper but I found it really interesting. It showed where these two guys are at, what progression they have both made and I for one learnt a lot about both guys from the fight. People might not like Kos but that was a perfect performance. He dictated the fight from start to finish, controlled the distance perfectly and gave Diego absolutely no chance to land either a decent punch or a takedown. THAT IS A PERFECT FIGHT and for that Kos should be praised not admonished.

If you don’t like the way the fight went, blame Diego. Someone I talked to criticised Kos for not staying in the pocket and exchanging blows. I find that utterly rediculous. Why should he? Go watch GSP vs Hughes 2. GSP won that fight by controlling the distance in exactly the same way - bouncing in and out of range and throwing combos whilst never giving Hughes a chance to find his range and shoot.

GSP does it and he’s a legend, Kos does it and he’s boring. Kos didn’t put away Diego and GSP did finish Hughes but maybe Diego just has a better chin. At the end of the day, it’s exactly the same gameplan.

So what do we actually want as MMA fans?

Josh Koscheck has improved beyond recognition, so much so that Javier Mendez (his coach at AKA) believes his striking is technically superior to that of noted striker Mike Swick. Apparently the average MMA fan would rather he was just came in to slug without a gameplan.

Having said all this, I believe group mentality has played a big part in the slating that Kos has received. I live in the UK and was at my girlfriend’s parents house during UFC69, meaning I had to watch in virtual silence at 5am, so I didn’t wake the rest of the house.

I didn’t have any buddies shouting “God damn it, Kos sucks, I hate that guy”, nor could I couldnt hear the crowd booing. Watching the fight I was thinking “why doesn’t Diego do anything different” but I certainly wasn’t thinking “Hey, Kos is really dominating this fight, if I were him I’d definitely change my gameplan… maybe I’d go stand in the pocket and trade bombs!”

So what am I trying to say? Well I guess primarily I’m a little disappointed, in an MMA snob kind of way.

I’m disappointed that Kos is getting a load of heat for putting in a perfect performance.
I’m disappointed that Dana White and Joe Silva said the Kos vs Diego fight sucked, playing into the BRAWLING PWNS mentality.
I’m disappointed that they’ve gone back on their promise of a title shot for the winner, instead fast tracking good ol’ Zuffa favourite Matt Hughes into another title fight. Hughes beat Chris Lytle whilst Kos beat Diego Sanchez… Which is more impressive?
I’m also a little baffled that anyone would even consider a manufactured and gassed out slugfest between Huerta vs Garcia as a “great” fight, let alone fight of the year.
I believe Kos would beat Hughes standing and on the ground. I believe Kos would also give GSP a run for his money too. The UFC have already had one nightmare run with a UFC champ the fans hated and I don’t think they want to risk Kos doing the same thing as Sylvia. However much Kos deserves a shot, I think the UFC will keep him away from it as long as possible. That utterly devalues the title for me and leaves a bitter taste in my mouth. Pride took a lot of heat for protecting their champs with non title fights (and rightly so), but at least they were honest with the protection of their desired champions. UFC are being far more subtle about it but the whole process is no less contrived.

There is one irony here however. The longer the UFC keep Kos away from a title shot, the better he will get and the more likely he is to win the title and subsequently hold on to it for a long time.

Summary

People claim to want the sport to evolve. People claim to want to see the best athletes coming in and getting paid a small fortune for their services. Yet when an elite athlete enters the sport, learns the skills faster than anyone thought possible and puts in a flawless performance, he is slated for it not only by the fans but also his employers. Furthermore, on the same card, two fighters gas after a round, throw endless arm punches, nearly falling over in the process and it’s fight of the year - praised by all and hailed by the UFC management.

Where is this sport going? What deserves praise? Apparently it isn’t immense improvement, it isn’t elite level conditioning and it isn’t superior gameplanning. A slugfest is always going to be entertaining but let’s give the tacticians and the elite athletes a bit of credit too because as the paychecks increase, we’ll be seeing a lot more of them!

Thoughts? Agree? Disagree?

BlingDogg · 04-15-2007, 11:06 AM

This was a great article, and exactly what I've been thinking the whole time since the event.

Sure Huerta/Garcia was an exciting fight. Both of them kept throwing punches and attacking the whole time, they had alot of heart and didn't give up. But I honestly saw little technique involved, or at least not enough to award it as fight of the year or anything. To me it was just a good slugfest. This kind of fight is good to see every once in a while, but not what I'd want to see regularly in mma.

Huerta and Garcia had basically 0 defense, a gameplan based on "just keep hitting the other guy", and didn't show the strategy or skills that other better fights have shown. Koscheck/Diego might have been boring to some people (not at all to me), but here you got to see fighters fighting carefully and thinking about their every move. And the Edgar/Griffin showed more reversals, counter-attacks, and a variety of mma skills. The fight was more evenly matched, much unlike Huerta/Garcia.

This Huerta/Garcia fight will go down like another Bonnar/Griffin match, and may attract fans who just like slugfests, but to me it isn't what mma's about. I was impressed with their heart, but not really their skill.

I'd be surprised if there wasn't a better fight than this by the end of the year. Already I'd put Couture/Sylvia higher up than Garcia/Huerta. Even though Couture dominated the fight and it was pretty one-sided, Couture showed what a smart mma fighter is all about.
I think some people have been over-reacting about the fights in UFC 69....

riversideblues · 04-15-2007, 11:39 AM

Quote:

“Hey, Kos is really dominating this fight, if I were him I’d definitely change my gameplan… maybe I’d go stand in the pocket and trade bombs!”

all the 12 year olds who post here take note of that statement

or just keep blaming koscheck

HaVoK · 04-15-2007, 12:04 PM

I never blamed Kos for that fight being boring. He did exactly what I would have done in his position. Push it just enough and dominate the fight to win. Diego is the reason that fight was boring, and I wanted/bet him to win that one.

Corey · 04-15-2007, 12:11 PM

I think its heart. Obviously you want to see skilled fighters fighting, but skill is not enough. When you can see it in both fighters eyes that they'll do anything to win and they just leave it all in the octagon. "Good fighters fight to win. Bad fighters fight not to lose."

Ring_Raider_07 · 04-15-2007, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlingDogg

This was a great article, and exactly what I've been thinking the whole time since the event.

Sure Huerta/Garcia was an exciting fight. Both of them kept throwing punches and attacking the whole time, they had alot of heart and didn't give up. But I honestly saw little technique involved, or at least not enough to award it as fight of the year or anything. To me it was just a good slugfest. This kind of fight is good to see every once in a while, but not what I'd want to see regularly in mma.

Huerta and Garcia had basically 0 defense, a gameplan based on "just keep hitting the other guy", and didn't show the strategy or skills that other better fights have shown. Koscheck/Diego might have been boring to some people (not at all to me), but here you got to see fighters fighting carefully and thinking about their every move. And the Edgar/Griffin showed more reversals, counter-attacks, and a variety of mma skills. The fight was more evenly matched, much unlike Huerta/Garcia.

This Huerta/Garcia fight will go down like another Bonnar/Griffin match, and may attract fans who just like slugfests, but to me it isn't what mma's about. I was impressed with their heart, but not really their skill.

I'd be surprised if there wasn't a better fight than this by the end of the year. Already I'd put Couture/Sylvia higher up than Garcia/Huerta. Even though Couture dominated the fight and it was pretty one-sided, Couture showed what a smart mma fighter is all about.
I think some people have been over-reacting about the fights in UFC 69....

I agree. I've always said that Griffin-Bonnar 1 was a pretty bad fight.

Good read, though. Thanks for the link.

gekko07 · 04-15-2007, 12:20 PM

I'll tell ya what I was impressed with was Garcia's chin. He ate about 30 good punches and just kept right on comin'. Either Huerta's punches are a lot softer than they look, or Garcia has a brickwall for a chin.

Yeah, there probably wasn't a lot of skill involved in this fight, but I'll watch a fight like that all day long. The lightweight division will soon be the most exciting division in the UFC.

Rocky12233 · 04-15-2007, 02:07 PM

That was a great article, thanks for posting.....

p19101 · 04-15-2007, 02:08 PM

Very good article I must say. I agree with pretty much everything he said. I did think the Huerta fight was a good brawl, but not awesome. In fact not even the best fight of that event, I far more enjoyed the Grove - Belcher fight, which offered much more diversed action imo.

Regarding the Kos fight, I belive my dislike for Diego makes me a little biased, but I didn't think it was as bad as some ppl try to make it. Probably seeing Diego lose made it a lil better in my point of view, but still not a horrible fight.

Also I think the article missed one thing. One thing that makes a fight more interesting is if you have emotions towards one or both of the fighters. If you feel like / dislike / hate / love / whatever towards one or both of the fighters it sure makes it more exciting. For two fighters you have never heard of to be interesting they have to put on a far better show than for example GSP - Hughes to be appreciated, at least in my opinion.

Harms · 04-15-2007, 02:13 PM

It was a bad fight. To compare it to Hughes/GSP is a disservice to what GSP did. And I do seem to recall GSP finished Hughes. Kos/Sanchez could have went 20 rounds and I doubt Kos would have finished Diego.

Bomber · 04-15-2007, 02:50 PM

That article was a great read, well thought out.

Daniel · 04-15-2007, 05:43 PM

Yeah, great article. I agree with a lot of the points mentioned but I haven't seen the Huerta fight myself yet.

MillerLite · 04-15-2007, 08:34 PM

An example of a great fight, is like the match between Diego Sanchez and Karo Parysian. 2 fighters come in shape, giving it everything they got, standing up, going to the ground. With either fighter backing up, keep pushing the pace, looking for the finish, by using techniques they know, not throwing wild punches hoping for a lucky KO.

rebrab · 04-15-2007, 10:36 PM

Diego - Kos, was not a great fight, both of them slacked. Diego was afraid of loosing his perfect record, and Kos just wanted to put in enough to get the decision. Both ways of fighting are bunk, and whoever wrote the article comparing it to Hughes/GSP should be farted on. MMA fans, in my opinion want to see technical skill, and aggressiveness.

On that account the Huerta-Garcia fight, i would agree on dude's account. It was a good battle, but not fight of the year.

Rebrab