On Saturday night Georges St-Pierre did what many expected him too. He beat Nick Diaz by unanimous decision. These days though, St-Pierre soundly beating an elite opponent doesn't seem to be enough.
After UFC 158, St-Pierre has now set the record for the most consecutive time inside the octagon without a finish, going six fights (150 minutes) without stopping an opponent. Beating Jon Fitch's previous record of 145 minutes.
This is what seems to be the issue with a large proportion of fans. St-Pierre now has a reputation of fighting with a safety first mentality. He has this reputation for a reason, because it is probably true.
But so what? Can we blame him for fighting this way?
St-Pierre may fight conservatively but he has been wildly successful doing so. He is 18-2 in the UFC, that is an incredible feat. He is also a 2-time Welterweight champion and in his current reign he has defended his title 8 times. So why change a winning formula.
Be that as it may, how will St-Pierre's so called boring style affect his legacy?
When picking our favourites, as fans, we tend to choose 'fighters' over 'mixed martial artists'. For example, Wanderlei Silva will always be adored more than Lyoto Machida. This would be very hard to justify on paper. Machida is a former UFC champion and has won a larger percentage of his fights. However, some of us, inherently love our occasional doses of violence. And that is precisely what Silva delivers, win or lose.
St-Pierre is certainly a mixed martial artist rather than a fighter. More of a thinker than a brawler. He lacks the intensity and violence that so many fan-favourites possess. It is for these reasons that St-Pierre will always lose out to the likes of Wanderlei Silva in a popularity contest.
He is almost the Floyd Mayweather of MMA. His fighting style isn't the most well received by fans but his talent and accomplishments are undeniable. His record will speak for itself, beating that many great fighters demands respect. Facts will always last longer than opinions.
Why should St-Pierre take unnecessary risks?
We sometimes forget that MMA is a sport. The fighters within it are competing to win and to ultimately be the best in the world. St-Pierre has found a winning formula that allows him to do so. Would a successful football team change a winning tactic because it wasn't the most exciting? I doubt it.
Plus, he is a human being in a dangerous sport. It is difficult to find fault, on that level, with his approach. His fighting style will allow him to go down as one of the greatest of all-time, amass great wealth and retire with his brain intact. To me, that seems like a smart move.
It's odd that I read this commentary this week. I just watched the documentary "Like Water" last weekend. The criticism that Anderson Silva takes for boring fights strikes me exactly the same way you describe St-Pierre.
ReplyDeleteAs I see it, Silva works to be well ahead in a fight. Once he has established he's the better fighter, he starts "running". This has several purposes. One, his speed makes him an unbelievable counter striker. Two, fact one makes opponents afraid to try to strike him while he is running around like that. Three, this minimizes the hits he takes.
Any fighter, any night, can go down to essentially a lucky shot. How can you criticize reducing the chances of receiving that shot? Not only that, but when we see fighters take a heavy beating, win or lose, it often affects their fighting for the rest of their career. I feel like Forrest Griffin's career suffered from that. I think he had too many brawls and it limited his longevity.
In a world where football players are seeing constant changes due to the long term effects of taking a repeated beating, it's hard to criticize such a strategy. This is to improve the longevity of his career as well as his quality of life after his career.