- Joined
- Apr 11, 2010
- Messages
- 18,425
- Reaction score
- 10,992
Hilarious how all of Sherdog is mentioning "he looked worse because he was inactive" as an excuse. No shit he looked worse, and those of us who watched the sport for more than a year all predicted that prior to the fight while others were saying nonsensical shit like "no way he'll lose after insulting Leon so bad and with Trump watching." Little kid weirdo mentality that whoever has the meanest insult wins a fight and that Trump sitting there transfers magic powers to a guy, eclipsing the facts that he ducked fighting for 18 months to get an unearned 3rd title shot while not being ranked in the top 5 (but artificially maintained his top 5 status through inactivity).
This past year shows a few things:
1. A huge chunk of fans have no idea what they're watching in terms of skills/analyze fights with the above kindergarten mentality. This appears to have worsened since WWE and UFC merged.
2. The American vs Dagestan wrestling meme was already dead as observed by those of us who understood grappling, but this should have killed it even among casuals. The same entry tried over and over, getting shut down by a Brit (elite Brit but still a guy who did grappling only later in his life) over and over. Funny how technically clueless many fans are: for years not understanding what they were watching. I remember all the "prime BJ" people saying he'd stop Khabib TDs and beat him... this in a world where prime BJ lost to a Colby-esque grappling approach (solely meant in terms of lack of TD variety) from GSP in their rematch (push to fence - same entry over and over - eventually get it). You have any idea what prime Khabib would have done with that same BJ against the fence for nearly half an hour? Hint: it wouldn't be a stalemate for huge chunks of time involving 20 double-leg attempts.
3. MOST OF ALL HOWEVER: Colby's strategy paid off. In that sense he is a success-story for lack of elite skills somehow still being treated as being elite. He CHOSE to duck Khamat and Shavkat these past 18 months just like he CHOSE to not fight a single legit contender over the past 5 years. I laughed out loud when the broadcast team was STILL milking his RDA win (his last win over a contender) last night, 47 years after the fact. Yes, he lost the title fight. Yes, he was exposed for his skillset not being near what people claimed (for YEARS clueless people have said every legit contender would have a super-hard time vs Colby with absolutely 0 evidence). Yes, he would have lost to any top 5 talent and lost his spot if he didn't refuse to sign to fight all of them. BUT he showed that all you need to avert those facts is, like a bot, say "FOR THE TROOPS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT!" and then wave a flag and it'll obscure those things so you get a third title shot. Doesn't matter that he lost... in fact the manner in which he lost proves he shouldn't have been in there in the first place which is MORE OF A RINGING ENDORSEMENT for the fact that success is possible in today's UFC despite mediocrity.
TLDR #1: The template has been set for non-elite skillsets on what to do with your career at the end of your athletic prime. Ride out a larger cultural meme to obscure your mediocrity. If you earn a ranking sit on it forever. Good things will come to you. Maybe not good enough to win a title because you aren't that skilled no matter how bad you jury-rig it, but good enough that your career will be extended in that you'll get preferential treatment (from 3 title shots to getting interviewed by Joe after you lose a lopsided UD) instead of getting squashed by a real contender (ie: what would have happened if Colby signed to fight Khamzat a year ago).
TLDR #2 (counter-hypothesis): The template was set but in the OPPOSITE way. If you're a young fighter watching: DON'T do what Colby did. Yes he artificially got a 3rd title shot, but he also ensured it was a loss (by choosing to duck / sit on a couch for 18 months). So you should fight the contenders/stay active so even if you lose and your career spirals downward you can at least live with it 30 years later, knowing you gave it your all and can show your grandkids the best version of you losing on a semi-big stage instead of the "fresh off the ducking couch" version of you losing on the biggest stage.
Which TLDR do you think is more accurate? I am leaning towards #1 personally and think many young fighters will draw the same conclusion in the TKO Holdings era, but I could also see younger fighters coming to that #2 conclusion as well.
This past year shows a few things:
1. A huge chunk of fans have no idea what they're watching in terms of skills/analyze fights with the above kindergarten mentality. This appears to have worsened since WWE and UFC merged.
2. The American vs Dagestan wrestling meme was already dead as observed by those of us who understood grappling, but this should have killed it even among casuals. The same entry tried over and over, getting shut down by a Brit (elite Brit but still a guy who did grappling only later in his life) over and over. Funny how technically clueless many fans are: for years not understanding what they were watching. I remember all the "prime BJ" people saying he'd stop Khabib TDs and beat him... this in a world where prime BJ lost to a Colby-esque grappling approach (solely meant in terms of lack of TD variety) from GSP in their rematch (push to fence - same entry over and over - eventually get it). You have any idea what prime Khabib would have done with that same BJ against the fence for nearly half an hour? Hint: it wouldn't be a stalemate for huge chunks of time involving 20 double-leg attempts.
3. MOST OF ALL HOWEVER: Colby's strategy paid off. In that sense he is a success-story for lack of elite skills somehow still being treated as being elite. He CHOSE to duck Khamat and Shavkat these past 18 months just like he CHOSE to not fight a single legit contender over the past 5 years. I laughed out loud when the broadcast team was STILL milking his RDA win (his last win over a contender) last night, 47 years after the fact. Yes, he lost the title fight. Yes, he was exposed for his skillset not being near what people claimed (for YEARS clueless people have said every legit contender would have a super-hard time vs Colby with absolutely 0 evidence). Yes, he would have lost to any top 5 talent and lost his spot if he didn't refuse to sign to fight all of them. BUT he showed that all you need to avert those facts is, like a bot, say "FOR THE TROOPS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT!" and then wave a flag and it'll obscure those things so you get a third title shot. Doesn't matter that he lost... in fact the manner in which he lost proves he shouldn't have been in there in the first place which is MORE OF A RINGING ENDORSEMENT for the fact that success is possible in today's UFC despite mediocrity.
TLDR #1: The template has been set for non-elite skillsets on what to do with your career at the end of your athletic prime. Ride out a larger cultural meme to obscure your mediocrity. If you earn a ranking sit on it forever. Good things will come to you. Maybe not good enough to win a title because you aren't that skilled no matter how bad you jury-rig it, but good enough that your career will be extended in that you'll get preferential treatment (from 3 title shots to getting interviewed by Joe after you lose a lopsided UD) instead of getting squashed by a real contender (ie: what would have happened if Colby signed to fight Khamzat a year ago).
TLDR #2 (counter-hypothesis): The template was set but in the OPPOSITE way. If you're a young fighter watching: DON'T do what Colby did. Yes he artificially got a 3rd title shot, but he also ensured it was a loss (by choosing to duck / sit on a couch for 18 months). So you should fight the contenders/stay active so even if you lose and your career spirals downward you can at least live with it 30 years later, knowing you gave it your all and can show your grandkids the best version of you losing on a semi-big stage instead of the "fresh off the ducking couch" version of you losing on the biggest stage.
Which TLDR do you think is more accurate? I am leaning towards #1 personally and think many young fighters will draw the same conclusion in the TKO Holdings era, but I could also see younger fighters coming to that #2 conclusion as well.
Last edited:
