TUF Season 13: Lesnar vs Dos Santos Discussion Thread *Spoilers*

[The Cum Doctor]

That's all well & good, but when your competing at the top end of the UFC, where competition is tough you can't always entertain. Your priority, like any other sportsman, is to win and to collect your pay. If you win your fights, and manage to finish your opponent, then you're on top of your game.

 

Not only that, but if you start to change the style and go all out and be exciting, and then go on a losing streak because you didn't fight to your strengths, you get cut from the UFC roster, which realistically is where these guys want to be.

[David]

That's all well & good, but when your competing at the top end of the UFC, where competition is tough you can't always entertain. Your priority, like any other sportsman, is to win and to collect your pay. If you win your fights, and manage to finish your opponent, then you're on top of your game.

Not only that, but if you start to change the style and go all out and be exciting, and then go on a losing streak because you didn't fight to your strengths, you get cut from the UFC roster, which realistically is where these guys want to be.

Exactly.

 

As I said in the general MMA thread, there are always going to be guys who will win some & lose some, but never get to the very top. Those guys will always be found mid-card and willing to throw down and put on a show.

[bobbins]

The argument isn't whether the fighters are achieving their goals, or about what we expect of them. It's simply about whether what we deem what we watch is entertaining, which is totally subjective and dependent on a large number of factors.

That's all well & good, but when your competing at the top end of the UFC, where competition is tough you can't always entertain. Your priority, like any other sportsman, is to win and to collect your pay. If you win your fights, and manage to finish your opponent, then you're on top of your game.

And if you've got big hair, jump around like a twat and everyone remembers the exciting fights you had a few years ago, then you're set, right? Doesn't mean I can't point it out when someone's one-dimensional, negative, boring, stifling and not interested in inflicting damage.

 

Not only that, but if you start to change the style and go all out and be exciting, and then go on a losing streak because you didn't fight to your strengths, you get cut from the UFC roster, which realistically is where these guys want to be.

But Dana's always going on about exciting fights, risk-taking, leaving it all in the cage etc. If Guida had fought the way he does now for his entire UFC career, then he probably wouldn't be around now, regardless of win-loss record.

[David]

But Dana's always going on about exciting fights, risk-taking, leaving it all in the cage etc. If Guida had fought the way he does now for his entire UFC career, then he probably wouldn't be around now, regardless of win-loss record.

You think so? I can't recall a time when Dana cut a fighter with a winning record. They may not pick up any big bonuses, but they don't get cut.

[Supremo]

Contractually, the UFC can't cut you after a win. After a singular loss though the UFC has cut guys like Gerald Harris for being boring, whereas exciting fighters like Dan Hardy and Matt Brown are both on three fight losing streaks, but still employed because they are exciting. When you're on the bubble, it's clearly better to be an exciting fighter than a boring one.

[Egg Shen]

does anyone else still think there was more to Gerald Harris cutting than what we were told?

[David]

After a singular loss though the UFC has cut guys like Gerald Harris for being boring, whereas exciting fighters like Dan Hardy and Matt Brown are both on three fight losing streaks, but still employed because they are exciting. When you're on the bubble, it's clearly better to be an exciting fighter than a boring one.

Yeah, i remember there being a bit of a stink about that release. He was that boring that he went into that bout on a three fight winning streak, all by TKO/KO.

 

He's also won two knockout of the night bonuses as well. I'd say there's more to it than him being "boring".

[Supremo]

At the risk of David being a bitch about me quoting The Observer, here's what Dave Meltzer reported at the time.

 

The most notable was the debut of Maiquel Falcao of Brazil, who came into his UFC debut with a 25-3 record, with one no contest. Of those 25 wins, 21 were via knockout and three were via submission. Sounds on paper like an exciting fighter. His opponent, Gerald Harris, had won nine in a row, with only one of those wins going the distance. But instead, the two went into Detroit bound and determined to recreate the most famous MMA fight in the city of the city–Ken Shamrock vs. Dan Severn in 1996. The crowd started booing 30 seconds into the fight, and it got bad at 90 seconds. There was some action late in the first, and as it turned out, tremendous controversy. Falcao locked in a choke on Harris with time running out. For reasons that have not been explained, the horn sounded at about the 4:53.5 mark with Harris locked in the choke. At the arena, nobody was aware of the issue, but word spread by the next time from people who re-timed the round. Harris was saved by time running out, and it looked like he was two to three seconds from being done, and it’s unlikely he could have survived 6.5 seconds. Marc Ratner of UFC and the Michigan Unarmed Combat Commission are looking into the situation, which appears to be human error by the timekeeper. Falcao’s camp afterwards noted not being that upset, given that their man won the fight, but if Harris had come back to win, this would have been a disaster.

 

The crowd booed the second round hard and the third was among the worst rounds of the year. Another issue with the fight was when the scores were read, Blatnick’s card was read as 29-27 for Falcao. In actuality, Blatnick gave all three rounds 10-9 scores and the commissioner doing the score sheet incorrectly added Blatnick’s three 10's to be 29, although it was quickly corrected upon review after the scores were read.

 

It appeared the two were determined not to touch at all in round three, until Falcao ruined the plan at 2:40 by landing a body kick. Nothing happened again until 4:00 into the round when Harris went for a takedown. He didn’t get it. The crowd booed both men heavily throughout the round and after it. Because the match was so bad, even with this being his first loss after a long win streak, Harris ended up getting cut. This was meant as a strong message that with the roster as large as it is, fights like this one, not boring because some fans may not have appreciated the techniques being used, but where two fighters go minutes without touching, won’t be tolerated.

 

There was a lot of controversy regarding the cutting of Gerald Harris, because he had won three in a row before his terrible fight with Maiquel Falcao, which he lost and got him cut. It wasn’t the loss, but it was the Larry Zbyszko-like tactics of not touching for most of the third round and much of the first round as well. It led to people flooding Dana White’s twitter with a campaign to get him back, which is a hornet’s nest he asked for when he decided against doing Lesnar vs. Mir III (there are things involved in that decision more than just the twitter reaction but that was a part of it) based on reaction. It encouraged web site message boards to do campaigns on every decision he makes. Anyway, this time he’s not listening. The thing with Harris showed the company is not going to tolerate non-action fights, particularly when it’s on the main card. Unless you are a big star, if you are in a really terrible fight, and Harris vs. Falcao is the dictionary definition of one, the loser is going to be in jeopardy.

 

EDIT: In fact, it seems to have been reported similarly all over the net. He himself even admits it in the second link;

 

"I'm glad that Dana didn't say, 'You will never fight in the UFC again.' He said, 'You looked like [expletive], and you need to go home and think about it.' They just don't have time for performances like that."

 

It is a surprisingly positive outlook from a fighter who easily could have a chip on his shoulder right now. Instead, Harris said he wants to take the experience and turn it into something positive.

 

"It wasn't personal," Harris said. "It was just a business decision. I can't disagree with a business decision when there's money involved. We're paid to perform, and I did not perform on that night.

 

Harris had a terrible fight, was on the losing end, so was released immediately, regardless of what he'd done previously. Evidence to the point that Dana and the UFC prefer exciting fighters to boring ones.

[Shane O' Mac Version 2]

After a singular loss though the UFC has cut guys like Gerald Harris for being boring, whereas exciting fighters like Dan Hardy and Matt Brown are both on three fight losing streaks, but still employed because they are exciting. When you're on the bubble, it's clearly better to be an exciting fighter than a boring one.

Yeah, i remember there being a bit of a stink about that release. He was that boring that he went into that bout on a three fight winning streak, all by TKO/KO.

 

He's also won two knockout of the night bonuses as well. I'd say there's more to it than him being "boring".

Could be a case of bad attitude like Todd Duffee? Just speculating.

 

Or, what Supremo said.

[Swift89]

He must have known he was 2 rounds down going into the 3rd, so knew he had to finish the fight. However he didn't try and do anything in the 3rd round and just seemed to stop fighting.

[David]

Evidence to the point that Dana and the UFC prefer exciting fighters to boring ones.

I don't think Harris was cut for being a "boring" fighter. As Ebb said, there's more to it than that, especially when you look at his record going into the fight.

 

This part here tells us all we need to know really;

 

This was meant as a strong message that with the roster as large as it is, fights like this one, not boring because some fans may not have appreciated the techniques being used, but where two fighters go minutes without touching, won

[Supremo]

Or, what Supremo said.

I apologise dude. I imagine it's quite a rarity for someone to, you know, check some facts before posting in MMA threads. My experience today has proven that the more regular method of discussing things is to guess, speculate and half remember things, forget what the thread of discussion actually is, or just go off on a mad tangent regardless.

[David]

This is a recurring theme with you Supremo.

 

You appear, start arguing with the MMA thread regulars, make some comments about how you're right and we're all wrong then fuck off for a few weeks before returning to go through the exact same thing all over again.

 

The MMA threads are usually decent places for discussing the fights and so forth, with most of us all getting along reasonably well. Why not just join in? Do you really have to be an arse all of the time?

[Shane O' Mac Version 2]

Or, what Supremo said.

I apologise dude. I imagine it's quite a rarity for someone to, you know, check some facts before posting in MMA threads. My experience today has proven that the more regular method of discussing things is to guess, speculate and half remember things, forget what the thread of discussion actually is, or just go off on a mad tangent regardless.

That wasn't a laugh directed at you, I was just chuckling at the timing of our posts, no need to get all uppity about it. But since we're there, I suppose I should learn that discussions should always be based on cold facts, not opinions, and deviation from the assigned topic should never occur, even when the subjects do link throughout the thread. Cheers for the lesson in forum etiquette mate.

[Supremo]

This is a recurring theme with you Supremo.

 

You appear, start arguing with the MMA thread regulars, make some comments about how you're right and we're all wrong then fuck off for a few weeks before returning to go through the exact same thing all over again.

 

The MMA threads are usually decent places for discussing the fights and so forth, with most of us all getting along reasonably well. Why not just join in? Do you really have to be an arse all of the time?

I didn't make any comments about how I was right and you were wrong. I simply made some points, was engaged by both you and Ebb, then fucking tortured to death by both your inane ramblings, going off on mad tangents, hinging things on semantics and asking me to justify things I never even said. I tried my best to make sense of all the guesses, assumptions, hazy memories and confused points, but ultimately it was a nightmare and you killed my passion for discussion. If that's what I can expect from, "MMA thread regulars," then I'm OK for now, thanks.

 

Although, the last time I was enough of a mug to engage with you I thought you said that you were only interested in discussing the fights themselves, and nothing that surrounded them? Turns out to have been a load of shit, that.